Player Ratings

mepbmlist
#1

Honestly, I don't see the problems. Recall, to score highly,
one must 1) finish games and 2) be on the winning team. What
is wrong with supporting that on an obscure web page or monthly
email?

Because the system rewards those that 1) complete the most games and 2) chose teams, sides and games based on likelihood of winning.

Someone that frequently recruits new players, and joins randomly assembled games for the fun of a new mix, is likely to have a low ranking, while someone that plays lots of games, with the same highly skilled players as teammates, is likely to have a high ranking.

I think we just don't need it. It adds little to nothing, may cost the "fun" of the game.

···

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

#2

Because the system rewards those that 1) complete the most games and 2)
  chose teams, sides and games based on likelihood of winning.

  Someone that frequently recruits new players, and joins randomly assembled
  games for the fun of a new mix, is likely to have a low ranking, while
  someone that plays lots of games, with the same highly skilled players as
  teammates, is likely to have a high ranking.

  I think we just don't need it. It adds little to nothing, may cost the
  "fun" of the game.
  RD: Surely there is room in Middle-earth both for players who want a ratings system, and those who want to play purely for fun?

  Players should be given a yes/no option at game start (do you want to be in a rated game or not?). Where's the problem?

  Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: corsairs game 101
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 5:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Player Ratings

  >Honestly, I don't see the problems. Recall, to score highly,
  >one must 1) finish games and 2) be on the winning team. What
  >is wrong with supporting that on an obscure web page or monthly
  >email?

  _________________________________________________________________
  Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#3

<<corsairs game 101 wrote:>>
<<Someone that frequently recruits new players, and joins randomly
assembled games for the fun of a new mix, is likely to have a low
ranking, while someone that plays lots of games, with the same highly
skilled players as teammates, is likely to have a high ranking.>>

But why shouldn't someone who plays much more often be rated higher,
assuming they're on the winning team most games? That just makes sense.
Someone more experienced due to more exposure (assuming they actually
won most of their games) should obviously have a higher rating. If they
didn't, then the system would be highly suspect. (If someone who played
three times and won three times was ranked #1 on the list, then
something was done wrong.)

Mike Mulka

#4

<<Richard DEVEREUX wrote:>>
<<Players should be given a yes/no option at game start (do you want to
be in a rated game or not?). Where's the problem?>>

A ratings system that only rates some of the players is MUCH less useful
to anyone. Plus there will be the stigma attached to those who have no
rating because they always said no. "Why isn't he rated? Must have
something to hide." (I'm not saying that everyone who refused to be
rated WOULD have something to hide, but the perception would still be
there.)

Mike Mulka

#5

With the opt out option I would keep a record of their scores as a base line to calculate the other scores in the game.

Clint

···

<<Richard DEVEREUX wrote:>>
<<Players should be given a yes/no option at game start (do you want to
be in a rated game or not?). Where's the problem?>>

A ratings system that only rates some of the players is MUCH less useful
to anyone. Plus there will be the stigma attached to those who have no
rating because they always said no. "Why isn't he rated? Must have
something to hide." (I'm not saying that everyone who refused to be
rated WOULD have something to hide, but the perception would still be
there.)

Mike Mulka

#6

  Players should be given a yes/no option at game start (do you

want to be in a rated game or not?). Where's the problem?

  Richard.

Hi, Richard.

For one thing, it doubles the difficulty of assembling games. Clint
would have to maintain one pool of players who want to be rated and
another of players who don't.

But I really don't care. If a rating system amuses others it's no
bother to me. Some players would love to have me on their teams no
matter what the ratings say. At least one wouldn't want to play with
me if I got top honors. Sensible players will pay little attention to
any of it.

Mark Jaede

#7

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "taurnil" <historian683@c...> wrote:

> Players should be given a yes/no option at game start (do you
want to be in a rated game or not?). Where's the problem?
>
> Richard.

Hi, Richard.

For one thing, it doubles the difficulty of assembling games. Clint
would have to maintain one pool of players who want to be rated and
another of players who don't.

But I really don't care. If a rating system amuses others it's no
bother to me. Some players would love to have me on their teams no
matter what the ratings say. At least one wouldn't want to play with
me if I got top honors. Sensible players will pay little attention to
any of it.

Mark Jaede

For the purposes of measuring how well folks have done, you need a
complete database. Its tough enough to figure any system out for a
multiplayer game. Now what do you do when nations A,B,C want to be
rated and nations D,E,F don't? This is way too complicated.

There is no need, however, to post the ratings of people who don't
want to have that done. This would seem to satisfy the desire to opt
out while keeping the bookkeeping tolerable for the GMs. At this
point, I mostly play for new challenges; I'll pick my nations to try
something different and I'll pick teams that I like.

There is one very important and useful purpose that seems to be lost,
and I have seen no counterargument. A lot of new games are lopsided
romps that end far too early. If there is *any* system, even a flawed
one, that allows the GMs to identify gross differences between the
skill/experience levels of the teams this could be greatly reduced,
e.g. by soliciting some experienced folks to serve on the team that
has fewer vets. Even a simple win/loss/drop count could avoid a
10-turn waste of time and money. With the exception of picking up
dropped positions or trying out new scenarios, I have effectively
stopped playing new start non-grudge games. Why? Because the last
several times I did it, the games were clearly won or lost in the
first few turns and there wasn't much challenge/suspense. I want to
have good opponents at least as much as I want to have good players on
my team!

Right now there is no way to establish a roughly level starting game
mix, and $150 US or more is a lot to gamble on something that could be
decided before the first pdfs go out.

cheers,

Marc

#8

Hear, hear!

I haven't played a non-grudge game in a long time, for exactly the reasons
Marc states.

OTOH, I have thought about what type of experience _I_ would have in the
current system, and do not believe that I would _never_ play in a "regular"
game again (under the current system). I would only do so every so often,
however, as my personal style of play includes a strong team component, which
I know (through experience) I would try to create. So, I have not ruled out
the _concept_ of playing in future non-grudge games, but would only do so
when I knew in advance that I had _alot_ of energy to devote to helping less
experienced players learn the fundamentals of team play. I believe, in a
sense, that I (and all players with some experience) have a "duty" to do just
that - play a game with random players, and try to teach team-building and
running - to help the player base grow. I do not, however, know that you can
"systematize" this "sense of duty." Vets who wanted to play but didn't feel
they had the energy to play a non-grudger would simply continue to not
participate in "regular" games, rankings or no.

$.02

b (suddenly, less silent ... good? bad?? you decide ... :slight_smile:

marc_pinsonneault wrote:

···

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "taurnil" <historian683@c...> wrote:
> > Players should be given a yes/no option at game start (do you
> want to be in a rated game or not?). Where's the problem?
> >
> > Richard.
>
> Hi, Richard.
>
> For one thing, it doubles the difficulty of assembling games. Clint
> would have to maintain one pool of players who want to be rated and
> another of players who don't.
>
> But I really don't care. If a rating system amuses others it's no
> bother to me. Some players would love to have me on their teams no
> matter what the ratings say. At least one wouldn't want to play with
> me if I got top honors. Sensible players will pay little attention to
> any of it.
>
> Mark Jaede

For the purposes of measuring how well folks have done, you need a
complete database. Its tough enough to figure any system out for a
multiplayer game. Now what do you do when nations A,B,C want to be
rated and nations D,E,F don't? This is way too complicated.

There is no need, however, to post the ratings of people who don't
want to have that done. This would seem to satisfy the desire to opt
out while keeping the bookkeeping tolerable for the GMs. At this
point, I mostly play for new challenges; I'll pick my nations to try
something different and I'll pick teams that I like.

There is one very important and useful purpose that seems to be lost,
and I have seen no counterargument. A lot of new games are lopsided
romps that end far too early. If there is *any* system, even a flawed
one, that allows the GMs to identify gross differences between the
skill/experience levels of the teams this could be greatly reduced,
e.g. by soliciting some experienced folks to serve on the team that
has fewer vets. Even a simple win/loss/drop count could avoid a
10-turn waste of time and money. With the exception of picking up
dropped positions or trying out new scenarios, I have effectively
stopped playing new start non-grudge games. Why? Because the last
several times I did it, the games were clearly won or lost in the
first few turns and there wasn't much challenge/suspense. I want to
have good opponents at least as much as I want to have good players on
my team!

Right now there is no way to establish a roughly level starting game
mix, and $150 US or more is a lot to gamble on something that could be
decided before the first pdfs go out.

cheers,

Marc

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/