I hesitated to stick my two cents in here...but just finished up a big job
at work and taking a couple nights off, so what the heck, might as well do some
random comments on random subjects, and this one is certainly appropriate...
When MEGames put it together, I tried to do my best to recollect my games
and positions and so on, but to tell the truth I had been in so many games by
that point it was hard to do much more than take an educated guess at some of
the numbers. I know I would have started off with a fine score after my
first game -- game 3 of 1650 run by GSI, which I won as the Fire King on a game
turn in the early 70s -- and I have tended to do fairly well overall. But
some games I remember 'losing' yet scoring in the top 3, other games I remember
helping my team win while my own nation's ranking was low -- you know, the
sort of thing that happens to the Eothraim fairly often in 1650 from being on
the front lines as both a military threat and an agent magnet from the start of
the game -- and both situation felt like rewarding games, in the first case
because I managed to fight on and score a very respectable finish despite my
team getting defeated, in the second case because it is rewarding to know you
were crucial to a team victory regardless of your actual standing at the
end... So when I tried to look back on games run as much as a decade or more
earlier, and having played every 1650 position at least once and some of them
a few times, as well as having played a handful of 2950 games and then lots
of 4th Age games on top of that (which is one reason why I played so few 2950
games, because I really like 4th Age), it was rather difficult to separate
out the various wins, survivals and so on from the "yep, I had a blast in that
game" or "that one was disappointing" feelings. So my starting position was
based on some records and a fair amount of guesswork based on memory, which
is better than random but certainly biased...
Anyway, I also have to admit that I really Dislike surveys, polls, and other
such things. (But I don't Hate them -- it isn't worth the extra personal
"185" order...) I pretty much don't fill them out period, regardless of the
source. So to be true to my basic nature, though I am happy to have data
collected regarding my performances from a strictly numerical standpoint -- wins,
losses, finishing position, etc. -- I have not once filled out the after-game
survey. I apologize to any former teammate who thinks I should have voted
for them for something, and to any former teammate who has voted for me for
anything, and ditto to any former enemies. I also do not use the results of
that subjective sampling for any purpose of my own, nor do I play any game with
an eye towards standing on any part of the PRS. I was occasionally amused
to review the results when they were being sent out, but I do not go looking
at those lists on my own initiative, ever. So I guess my relations towards
the lists are probably Neutral with respect to those based on voting and as
good as Tolerated towards those based on simple collection of hard data, while
Disliked to the collection process for the former and Neutral to the
collection process of the latter.
Hey, when I played chess in high school I never bothered to get a rating in
the chess federation either -- our school's chess club was more informal and
didn't do tournaments and stuff outside the school...which was fine with me.
Don't get me wrong -- like Brad, I do like numbers. As anyone who has been
in a game with me can certainly attest to, I especially like in-game
mechanics numbers -- whether the actual mechanics or the best player-guessed
approximations. I did get a BS in Math from MIT for a reason, and it wasn't so I
could get a job in the field, it was because numbers and related stuff are just
plain cool... (I am a printed circuit board designer, so numbers do play a
factor but are not the primary thing.) I track changes in loyalty, prices,
morale, training, weapon and armor ranks, skill ranks, spell casting
ranks...from one turn to the next, in every game... I review the results of orders and
the supposed possible gains vs the actual skill ranks improvements, and the
results of tax hikes and drops on pop center loyalty, even going so far on
occasion (as a Kingdom with lots of pop centers once) to plot the results of a
big tax drop out on a graph... (Hey, I did say I was a math nerd, right?)
And I even like statistics in general, though I know some of the things you
can do with statistics that are pretty bogus. But when I was at MIT I also
took a 'lab' course in Managerial Psychology...which was in essense a 'how to
construct and conduct surveys for statistical analysis' with those surveys
intended to be used for management type purposes -- a beginning course taught by
someone at the Sloan School of Management. And it is pretty amusing how
just the wording of questions can influence the results... Which is why most
well-crafted surveys basically ask the same essential guestion in multiple
ways, because that helps cancel out the bias introduced by the way any one
particular question is worded. But to get to the point (finally) that course had
a perhaps unintended side-effect of causing me to dislike subjective surveys
while at the same time appreciating even more the collection and
interpretation of hard data...
Of course, I could just be lazy and not want to take the time to fill those
things out... 
-- Ernie Hakey III
In a message dated 10/20/2008 10:00:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
bbme@rogers.com writes:
I like numbers. Hockey scores, baseball stats, Agent skill rank, loyalty,
Tax base, even VP's for comparative analysis, etc. Similarly, I think the PRS
is a "bit of fun" in regards to how they change, where some people are in
relation to others, etc.
Having said that, I'm personally under no illusion that they "mean"
anything... Even the votes, which are, by nature, *political*. I would never
"consult" the PRS to see if Bob or Jane are "good players". Oh my my, no no no..!!!
Brad
ยทยทยท
--- On Mon, 10/20/08, _nypdblue19@aol.nyp_ (mailto:nypdblue19@aol.com) <_nypdblue19@aol.nyp_ (mailto:nypdblue19@aol.com) > wrote:
From: _nypdblue19@aol.nyp_ (mailto:nypdblue19@aol.com) <_nypdblue19@aol.nyp_
(mailto:nypdblue19@aol.com) >
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] PRS
To: _mepbmlist@yahoogroumepbml_ (mailto:mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com)
Received: Monday, October 20, 2008, 10:03 AM
I don't think the win/loss ratio is a fair assement either -- have been
stuck in some indie games I knew where losers from what others do and don't
do or
even if they decide to talk or not talk --you know that game won't be
organized, not to mention Gunboats game -- I could have been doing great
with my
nations, but other got swamped and thus game will be lost eventually -- so
is
kind of biased on that to !! I tend to look at the "Best Enemy nation" -- as
you don't usually know who that enemy nation player is in some games that
you
vote for and evidently you made an impression on someone that they chose you
out of all the other enemy players as the best in that game even if on a
losing side !!
Mike
Initial creation: I checked out any records we had and went from
there. There's been enough time to see changes I suspect and any initial
errors to have been reduced in impact.
Clint (GM)
I generally just look at the win/loss ratio for a feel for player's quality.
Clint (player)
************ **New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your
destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out
(_http://local._ (http://local./) mapquest. com/?ncid= emlcntnew0000000 2)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
**************BUY Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on DVD
today!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1209326865x1200539441/aol?redir=http://www.indianajones.com/site/index.html)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]