Consider a single web page, think of the Stats pages for any professional sports league… Simply players listed with various columns that can be sorted on. Click on the column that matters to you and see how the players “rank”.
Name
Alias (? - forum ID, mentioned by Laurence, I don’t like Contact INFO here…)
Started (in mm/yy format)
Games In (as in Now)
Games Won
Games Lost
Games Dropped
Nazgul
Valar
Maia
Istari
Best Individual Player
Best Team Player
Best Enemy Player
VP Avg +/-
Last Active (last game end date if not currently in a game).
** VP Avg +/- I’m at a loss for terminology at the moment. What I mean the players average VP difference from the mean of the nation he’s playing per game. I simply don’t see the value in Total or Average VP’s, it’s as skewed as the Noldo compared to the Woodmen . So, if Woodie avg is 600 and I score 750, my +/- that game is +150. Next game, my Noldo scores 900 and the Avg Noldo is 1000 - I’m scored -110 and my “VP Avg +/-” is now 25 or (150-100)/2 games.
If the sortability per column is possible, a single web page showing comparative information side by side is what we can look at, instead of having to click through the current 2 pages each per 7 ratings (14 pages…!). And, we presume, all players are listed.
So are we to provide the info you mention above – I have alot of holes in my memery – like I don’t remember when I started palying – know it was game in 50’s under Deft and I can’t remember all the games I lost or even won for that matter !!
No, it’s a discussion to weigh the merits on whether MEGames takes it on and maintains the existing information (expanded information…?) on the current PRS site.
It’s already there - where you been…? Someone had an idea to improve on it, floating a starting point idea. If you’ve been ignoring it the whole time, carry on…
Anyone know the formula for rating a QB??? LOL So if I always come in first, as far as VP’s, as Cloud Lord, and the other guy always come in first as EO, who’s a better player???
I agree – haven’t looked at the PRS since it was started and only recently looked when someone sent out e-mail doing his own rating as I forgot all about it !! And I know its flawed as I was rated higher then some people I know that are definately better players then me – such as Bradford Fisher , Ben Shushan and Kevin Givens to name a few !!
Snort. Nice try, Mike, but you’ve played far more games than I and frankly have a better grasp of the game mechanics on all sorts of things. The PRS has it right, I think.
Ah , Bradford your forgetting one thing – I have and am playing in games with you and know you are the better player as you along with a few others are still teaching this Old Dog new tricks !!
Not necessarily Mike. I see your allies give you the votes, this helped your standing in that other thread that had you ahead of those you respect. There’s more to the game than knowing the mechanics. There’s more to the game than cute strategic moves that you might “never have thought of”. Some of the smartest players are FAR from the “best”, because there are aspects of the game that they ignore. Some aspects that these “geniuses” are cynical and snide about. You pay attention to more areas of the game than easily 95% of all players, smart, stupid, new and aged vet’s included. One of those is the bit about “new tricks”. I’m always astounded that so many people, even 2 game vet’s, already know everything they’re ever going to know and play childish self esteem one-up games whenever anyone has the audacity to tell them “Your 30 emissary will not successfully steal that pop, I recommend training him up for 20 or so weeks before trying that again…”…
The current ratings can use some improvement. Nowhere in the performances are measurable stats about the number of SS turns, player drops(i don’t believe this is accurate) and “ERRORS”. If a team wins with all of those factors and players have sweet scores that equate to those from a winning team in a game where there are no drop outs, no SS turns and very few errors; how does one determine their own skill in comparison to all players from the other formats?
Some players play primarily 2-wk and the things you see there are different than grudge games or 1wk games, not to mention the different versions, yet the top score in all of those games is treated equally. It’s not uncommon to see a newer player more skilled than some of the top players and vice versa. And some players are more skilled in a particular format, 1650 vs 4th age for example, but that cannot be distinguished in the rankings.
I think for some, it matters none, for others, they play the game to test their skills. In the end, it matters not because every game is a team game and the top position is going to be the one that is the least abused, not necessarily the best played.
I know, it’s not much help, I’m just voicing an opinion without much to offer in terms of improving things.
Dan
Dan agree pretty much with what you stated in your post , except the above – Gunboats games I don’t think are team games , even the one where communication is allowed every 6 turns , the Team spirit has been taken out of these and its a slug fest and great way to test yourself playing one of these two nation set-ups – I just started my first one a couple months ago and I love it – plan on trying every duel set-up to see how i do in this format , I actually start nations different in Gun-Boats then I would in a regular so called team game !!
For me, Gunboat games are a team game. Anytime one is forced into not hosing one’s ally and must concentrate fully upon the opposition is a team game. Minor quibble in any respect.
Mike - I agree that GB openings are very frequently different than standard openings - sometimes they’re quite daring. The nice thing about a daring opening in GB that fails is that only a subset of the opposition is aware of the failure and so the chance the entire opposite side jumps all over you is reduced. And of course, the point of a daring opening is that you catch your opposition flat-footed. woohoo! that IS fun.
As to GB being a team game - I think we’re playing word games here. It’s not a team game in the sense of a grudge game (far from it), or even a pick-up game. Are 12 nations allied as FP and the other 12 as DS? Yes. So there are alliances and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If one alliance loses too many nations, then it’s trouble time for the remaining nations/players on that side as they get ganged up on.
But I don’t see it as a team game in that there is limited cooperation and almost no coordination. one diplo going to your entire team every 5 turns starting on T6 really doesn’t allow much coordination. As has been stated on other threads in teh past, the diplo version slightly favor the FP where the coordination opportunities are military and longer term as a result. Character action coordination is virtually impossible for the DS.
All of this is a digression from Brad’s point of the post.
Brad - as I look in the mirror, I think I’m just an “ok” grudge team player (I compare myself to my teammates on Veta Schola many of whom I believe to be awesome grudge players). But I think I’m darn good at the solo variants (GB, etc). I wonder if these changes are ever to take effect in your “spreadsheet” format, whether the data could be segmented by game types:
2950 indie, grudge, GB
1650 indie, grudge, GB
FA indie, grudge, GB
Variations (Alliance, all neutral, etc.)
but hey, the main point is to have fun, not to worry about PRS ratings.
Someone had an idea to improve on it, floating a starting point idea. If you’ve been ignoring it the whole time, carry on… 
