MtG is a single player game similar to Chess. Are you converting
this game into a single player game?
Similar but the team as a group is one entity as well. Actually I played competitive chess (and would have for MtG if the format was there) in teams. (Gwent county chess, board 2 for my school that sort of thing - very much a team effort there - many years ago now).
What is to prevent me and 4 others joining a game taking all the
neutral slots and swinging the game the way we want? In fact, under
the Rating System, it makes far more sense for all neutrals to always
band together and declare for one side. This is the way to guarantee
rating points since most players drop if faced by a 15-10 neutral
split.
*** This is against the rules. You are not allowed to join together as a group of Neutrals. Not sure why it helps the ratings - if you have 5 Neutrals on your side you lose points relative to 4-1 or less split. With 15 Neutrals on your side even if you win you don't get many points at all (actually you lose a few on average). (Similar to the challenge of 15-10 game anyway!)
New Valar Rating = Original Rating + Change
Where; Change = 45 + (TotLose - TotWin )/150
Eg:
Let's say everyone has a Valar rating of 1500 (for simplicity)
If you had 10 players on the winning team vs 10 and they both have the same Total Rating of 10x1500 = 15,000 then you gain 45 points as the winners, and lose 45 points as the losers. If you won with say 12 players vs 10 then as the winners you ONLY get
45+ (10x1500 - 12x1500)/150 = 45 + (-3000)/150 = 45 -20 = 25 points.
(The losers only lose 25 points).
With a 15-10 split then the example is:
45 + (10x1500-15x1500)/150 = 45 + (15000-22500)/150 = 45 -7500/150 = 45 - 50 = MINUS 5 points (ie with a 15-10 split you LOSE points not many but some).
The losers gain 5 points! (I am hoping that this system will actually reduce the 15-10 boring games that do occasionally happen out there - although I doubt it will have a dramatic impact).
It also gives me a rough guide to even teams. Ie when setting up a game if I see that there is a massive differential in Ratings then I know that the game is going to be squiffed in favour of the higher rated team (in most cases) and that I might need to get a few more highly rated (generally better) players on the other side. How can that be bad?!
Heck, in the name of Rating Points might as well get my brother-in-
law to sign up for the same game I am joining but on the other side.
Since he isn't interested in MEPBM, he can just forward me all the
PDF printouts of the opposing team (guess we can say goodbye to
sharing PDFs, Yahoo groups etc). Currently there isn't really any
incentive to do this, as it would just screw up your current game.
But heck, in the name of Rating Points, Bragging Rights, Fame and
maybe Prizes, why not?
*** We'd chuck you out if we find out. Like we already have for another player. If you want to win that bad play Solitaire with as many changes variant rules as you want... 
Bribe us instead, or the other team...
I think your opening a big can of worms trying to add systems that
are appropriate for single player games into this one.
*** The rules (IE VPs) are already there. It's just that we don't pay them much heed at present. Your individual rating under Maia and Valar will go up and down - but your team-mates and yourself in that game GAIN (or Lose) the same amount. Ie still very much a team game - it has no impact on team-play that I can see - or am I missing something drastic here? The AInur rating is the absolute team rating - no individual aspects at all. As for Istari this is more individual and specifically created that way to represent a tally of the GSI scoring system over time. So some are more individual (Istari, then Maia and Valar, then Ainur in descending order) but all promote team play (you have to win to get more points). I know that some players will enjoy the Istari (more individual prowess - but still within the remit of having to win) rating system, but others won't and so can ignore it their leisure.
Clint
