And why don’t we have one for number of enemy troops killed thats important. Or one for number of pop upgrades or number of characters doubled or …
Regards Herman
Shocked to say I agree you Brad… 
One of the PRS I do hold value
is team player… Some players are great order checkers, idea reservoirs
and organisers. Ha not me! I do appreciate the archaeic pascal
programming provides a huge obstacle to PRS reform. I hope any
code re-writing will introduce game actions rather then the pretty
useless rating we have which in many cases rewards the selfish player.
For the pre-debate I was otherwise engaged abroad so the debate
is news to me. Anyone has any links?
Sure I stand corrected over the lines of code, lol. The aim of a
discussion over the PRS is working well however and that was my
major aim. If we had the code to work out the highest amount
of troops disbanded due to k/a’s, most gold transported to other
nations, highest combat constituitons destroyed among others;
wouldnt it be a fairer reflection of ME skill?
The only ones I even look at are votes from team and opposition players and win loss ratio. The rest are just filler.
Regards Herman
But I get many votes for just being a loud mouth and nothing to
do with any passable playing skill! So enemy players vote
can mean very little. lol
This is the thread that started it all:
http://www.mepbm.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1043
There are several others that came later, just use the search function and put in “player rating system” and you will get more threads abut it.
Mostly it’s just Darrell Shimel (not to be confused with me or “Another Darrel”, yes there are three of us, all different people) bad-mouthing the PRS, but it’s a good read with many valid points, I think. Note that Darrell Shimel is no longer a member of these forums, so obviously he will not be able to comment on any current debate. 
Oh really now. Did he get kicked out again? I know he was given a reprieve and rejoined once after being banned the first time…
Thanks Darrell… The thread is going to provide some entertaiment methinks
Hi, I’m Darrel.
This my brother Darrel.
This is my other brother Darrel.
Seriously, I don’t give a rats fanny about any of the PRS stuff…do whatever you want. A lot of those points or kills etc. type things don’t take into account opponent quality so when you find some disfunctional group that plays terribly…or get some enormous neutral imbalance…or whatever…you can rack up a large, meaningless, score. <shrug>
If I play good or bad, my teamates generally know…thats all the rating I need.
Also Guy, keep in mind, if it’s completely an accountant rating system a good Woodmen will never “amass” the kind of “score” a stingy Noldo would. Arbitrary counting is certainly not “fair” in any sense of the word, unless someone devised some way to scale the stats by nation, “bell curve” them so to speak. So Woodmen shipping gold is like 2.212 SG gold, etc. Gee, I wonder if we’d get everyone to agree on that…?
Yep, I agree with you Brad… How many times have we seen Harad and Noldo amass
huge scores and do nothing while poor ol WM & Rhu etc play isnt reflected in RPS.
Never will everyone ever agree on anything, its the way the world works.
I actualy think the Woodmen shipping gold should be counted as 2.21079, but it should be adjusted if the Witch King employs the buhr flambe option
Tim
Unless Corsairs goes free and hands over an MT. Then we’d scale it back down to 1.791.
It’s an interesting discussion. There are many ways of rating play, some are purely subjective (I like JD’s jokes for example), so team morale officer is one. What about team-planner etc (we have that rated in the PRS). Some of the ratings reflect individual excellence, ie high Istari rating indicates relative success with that nation relative to the normal score ( so scoring high with the Noldo doesn’t get you many points, but Fire King does ).
With the CotWise, player opinion is expressed. Valar and Maia reflect relative win/loss and experience rating.
Now within the game there are some old methods of scoring VCs that, on the whole, players don’t seem to like. No doubt, we’ll come back to this and look at some other ratings. Maybe some of you guys would like to input and create an article for Bree expressing some thoughts on what you’d like to see and how it could be calculated?
Clint
ah, where Dave and Drew have posted, I can’t miss out
I dare to say that unless you change the ridiculous victory conditions, it makes no sense changing the PRS.
Step one: Define real individual victory conditions for every nation that reflect player skill, step two: develop a new PRS.
When you (i.e. MEGames) do have the resources to start this project, I am sure there are many players who would contribute ideas (including me). Until then, this discussion is moot.
Not really, someone might step forward if they see a good idea to code it. We often get players do such things.
Removing/ignoring the VCs are pretty much the same thing for most players. I’d have to see if players actually want them removed really before I’d take that step.
Clint
The Random Victory Conditions have, or HAD, a purpose even if some don’t understand it.
Tim, you forgot your smiley face on your post
But it did get me laughing. First Laugh-of-the-day goes to Tim Huiatt!
Thanks Tim!
Dave
Yes Ed, they DID. In the days of yore, when this game was truly played via the postal service & fax machines, with little or no player-to-player contact other than index cards, the VCs were there to provide incentive (or excuse) for strife between nations of the same allegiance. True, they also provided some specific neutral and opposite-alignment targets as well.
As the world changed, email was invented, the world-wide-web came into existence and both became prevalent. Yahoo groups were invented as a free way of creating an online secure location for a team to collaborate. Now days cell phones provide free long distance as a part of typical service packages so it’s even possible to speak with team mates “live” with no additional cost. All of these provide a dramatic change in communication capability.
Those changes to the real world have a real effect on the game. To deny it is silly. Times change. The world evolves. For MEPBM to survive and thrive, it too must evolve. You are the vocal voice for keeping things the way they used to be. I think you ignore the reality outside the game that has changed and the inevitable consequences of such change.
Today, it seems (oddly enough) that players seem to want to win the game. With all the communication tools available, if you play the “game of yore” and backstab your team mates, you reduce your team’s liklihood of winning. The other team that works together, coordinates, and cooperates - they increase their liklihood of winning. And, if you adopt a back-stabbing, VC-focused mentality, you’ll get a bad reputation and people won’t want to be your team mate anymore.
Like it or not, the world has evolved. It effects this game. If you wanted to recreate the backstabbing & subterfuge aspects of the “game of yore”, you could do it using a GB-like format. I’m not sure how many people would want to play. But you could define it and see. So rather than continually bitching about it, be a part of the solution to your perceived problem and propose a game-of-yore set of rules. We could flesh them out and see if there are enough folks who’d want to play.
Dave
Glad you enjoyed my post Dave, I almost did not send it as I thought it might not be appropriate. I did figure out how to add the smiley face so put that in as well.
I just think VC in todays game make no sense. I have never used them, and don’t understand why anyone would. Even if you change them to something meaningful, which is another debate in itself as to what is meaningful and what is not, I am not sure what use they would have.
later,
tim