The PRS hasn’t been “running” long enough to make any kind of assessment. It’s for all to see how their own numbers change, over time, to detemine whether it’s something worth continuing or not, but that "over time’ means a year or so to watch things happen. Of course, I recall claims to monthly updates, while the originals were done Feb25, the next update Apr12 and here we’re well beyond that in May. I suspect the PRS may go the way of the “World Championship” and simply remain a forgotten web link due to apathy.
Originally posted by Zalendar
[b]Here is an idea, why not just not accept Darrell as a player. hehe Your game you can choose who you allow to play it.Shayne. [/b]
Dangerous game, so much worse than “moderating” the mepbmlist. This isn’t escorting an unruly drunk out of your restaurant before he breaks anything else here. I would not support an act such as this regardless of how I may or may not feel about who said what and how it was said. I actually get the feeling that any “anti-shimel” sentiment might be good business for MEGames… 
I’m in a game where some players might stay longer and pay more, just to take a shot at fighting his cherry-picking neutral nation. I don’t see anyone quitting because of this issue or situation, so I don’t see any cause to stop accepting his money. He pays, he plays, so what how a complete stranger from half way across the world behaves on an internet forum in regards to a hobby? There are a couple other folks on this forum doing much greater damage to the games they’re in than Darrell - anyone asking for Their heads? For all those who pipe up that Darrell should grow up, well, “let he who is without…” and the glass house one come to mind. I neither agree with his position, nor appreciate his tactics. Eh, so what :rolleyes: Let’s play!
Brad
“There are a couple other folks on this forum doing much greater damage to the games they’re in than Darrell - anyone asking for Their heads?”
—Ooooh, who are they and where can we find them? I loves a bit of gossip! And YES! Bring me their heads!!!
d
As a pretty much new to ME player, here is my opinion on PRS: don’t care. Means nothing, to me. I play ME, or any game, to have fun. If I don’t enjoy the experience, I won’t seek it out again. I don’t really understand how anyone can deliberately sabotage the game(s) they are in, just to prove a point. Is this enjoyable? When I first started playing team-type games, I saw that players whom wouldn’t support the team, earned a less-than-savory rep. Why play in a team-style game, if you are only interested in yourself? Wouldn’t GB be a better fit (I’ve never played GB, so an assumption on my part. This is in no way any type of “slam” against any GB players, either.)? I guess what I’m wondering is, why does the idea of PRS so enrage you? It doesn’t have to mean anything, so if you don’t care for it, don’t even consider it. Some people like things that I don’t, that’s fine. Why try to ruin others enjoyment? Are they actively trying to ruin your fun? This game is still fun for you, right? If your answer is other than “yes”, then things should become clearer.
Don
as a first time gunboat player I think team players are even more important then in a normal game since your allies have to be willing to help you even without you asking…it’s easier to ignore those in trouble if they can’t tell you they’re in trouble lol…maybe those that have played more gunboat games then I have percieve this differently
As long as I can opt out of the PRS I have no great objection to it. After some squalling I did get to opt out. However, I suspect the PRS consumes more company resources than they wish to admit. Hence the once- a- month cycle becoming an every-six- weeks cycle.
Sir Mormengil: Regarding censorship. So far you have supported Clint & company in all things. If you stepped outside that envelope, is it possible you might find a different environment?
Not long but Ed’s just notoriously bad at time management… 
Clint
Amen!
I have not voiced my opinion on any message board concerning MEPBM for many years. Thus far nothing has grabbed my attention like this discussion has. First let me say that I have not read all the posts concerning the PRS but I have read all the ones on this thread and many posts from other threads. I’d also like to say that I am neither for or against Darrel Shimel. I do however believe that he as a person and his opinions should not be bashed because he believes differently from many of the rest of you. Personally I think that bashing is exactly what many players come here to do and that it is part of the game, but just by the nature of the topic in this thread it is a poor place for such attacks. Also his remarks while I agree with much of what he says I must say have also crossed this line and that he too should be courtious. That being said I’d like to state my personal opinions about the Player Rating System and Victory Points.
Overall I like the PRS as an idea. Under the current methods of scoring I believe that it is very inaccurate. The current method for Victory Points is absolutely horrible. It was horrible when GSI ran the game and it is still the same today. It does not grade players on their skills by any means and promotes selfishness that results in feelings bitterness, anger, and jealousy. It also can and does damage the effectiveness of a sides offensive and defensive capabilities which can result in as much as a lost game. There are games where players are naming triple skills with their first batch of characters when they should be naming single class characters. There are many players who don’t want to send their allies gold or product even when in dire need. Instead of a badly needed recon players will give orders for troops maneuvers. These are a few examples of how VP’s hurt a team.
Nation building is not the only way to achieve a higher score however. The other method would be to accomplish your Victory Conditions. This is an incentive program that most often times rewards the more selfish players and punishes other players who give it their all. While someone is locating characters they need to kill as a VC there are other more important characters that should be located. While one nation is barely surviving and perhaps even on the verge of bankruptcy there are other nations with a surplus of gold and product. While many players use their emissaries to double enemy characters or influence away key pop centers, some players build their own nation and send their emmies across the map to get that one pop center they need for 100 more points. I know GSI stated that it added some sort of twist to the game to make it more interesting or something like that, but I believe that it does more damage than good. In fact I do not believe that it does any good.
Under the current methods of scoring it is inaccurate but until Harlequin gains the rights to the game I do not believe that there is any other way to score VP’s.
As far as the rankings for the player rating system is concerned here is my opinion on each. Please note that I do not fully understand some of them or their logic. The definitions listed are lacking in my opinion.
VALAR
Listed as chess style, the quality of each team and too many neutrals.
What exactly does the quality of each team mean. If they are using the flawed system of VP’s and the PRS to judge each member of both teams then how can they come up with a true result when the calculation system is flawed. I don’t truly understand this point.
As far as neutrals are concerned if too many join one side why should that harm your rating. What if one side does not talk to you while the communication on the other is abundant. Who would want to join a side that seems to not want you. There are too many fair and just reasons why most of the neutrals may end up on one side.
MAIA
Listed as experience points, more points for winning a game than for losing a game.
This from my many years of experience I know is flawed. I learned more in one game that I lost then in all the games I’ve won since then. My experience after my first two games was as much as most of the players who had been playing longer than me. My first two games were a total of 102 turns. Two games that I lost where I was the last and the second last knocked out. My first game lasted over two years. Though someone who plays two games that last a total of 40 even 50 turns, less than half of my turns automatically has a better score than I have. Thus meaning they are more experienced. Mind you during just those two games I took named agents and emissaries to natural ranks of 100. I was involved in every aspect of combat except naval, though I did have more than one navy. I killed characters through personal challenges, assassinations, curses, and over running armies. I killed Smaug in challenge. I stalled every attempt to knock me out until my hopeless odds finally fell against me. In one game I dropped as the last nation after conversing with the enemy and decided they were nice enough that I did not want to cost them any more money. I did more in those two games then many players do over the course of 5 and more games. By the way, I even held and was betrayed by the One Ring. How many players have held the One Ring?
What about standby games? Most of my losses came from them which were already doomed when I entered the game but my will and persistence kept me in till the end. One standby game I joined I was one of two left one my side the turn I picked it up with 5 popcenters and as many enemy armies already converging on my capital. How is that fair?
ISTARI
Listed as Individual success. It compares your score with a particular nation against what that nation usually scores at.
Now first of all any rank in which VP’s are used to grade a player should be tossed for the reasons I explained above. Second what if a game lasts 100 turns? Most likely you’ll have a score of 2500, even 2700 if your lucky enough. Now compare that to the average of a game that last 25 turns or so. What would that be, about 1100 to 1500 or so. That seems unfair. It also seems to promote nation building. Also how do you rate this for the “overall rating”? Does the number of games you play get you a higher score?
AINUR
Listed as a rating for Grudge teams. Teams that win without losing too many nations along the way.
So your score is based on wins and games played as I understand it. Now if you exchange players from game to game you lose points. So say one game you play with your team and maybe one was a new player who decided after the first game he doesn’t like it and leaves. So the team picks up an experienced veteran to take his place and the team will lose points for that. That makes no sense to me. The team now gains experience but loses points. I guess I just don’t get it.
Also, the way I understand it, the more game you play the higher your score is as long as you win. Why not just say team “Whatever” is 5/5 or 4/5? The scoring system is flawed and unfair so why not just list number of games played and how many they won and lost?
COUNCIL OF THE WISE
Listed as “Based on player votes.” Voting for, Best team player, Best played nation, Best player enemy nation.
This one isn’t that bad though there are some problems I think. Basically it comes down to honesty.
I not sure how it’s scored but if the people listed in the top 104 on the website are listed as that number for an individual game it’s ok. If it’s an accumulated number of games that’s not ok. If it’s accumulated then it should say how many games it’s based on.
NAZGUL
Listed as Based on combination of experience and wins.
My one problem is that it only lists the top 104 players. The lowest amount of games played is 8. That means that the people who have played in less than 8 games don’t get credit. I’m sure that if someone won 7 out of 7 they would like for it to be shown. Those people do not get a public showing of their record so no one knows for sure. It’s called exclusion.
RANKING BY GAME AND NATION
Top ten scores for each nation
Because it is based on a flawed system, in essence has no meaning.
I’ve played in many games over the years and have played very well. I’ve played on the same side as many of the people listed at the top of the PRS and I’ve played against many of them as well. I’ve given many of them a sound thrashing and have seen how many of them play through their pdf’s. I’m not impressed by many of the names I’ve seen in those lists.
These are my opinions. If anyone would like to dispute or even add to them I would really love to here from them. Overall I think the entire system is just plain wrong. I don’t believe that Harlequin can do anything till they get the rights and change the code. It’s all for fun so I ignore it.
What I cannot ignore is the fact that Darrel Shimel would now like to be a part of the PRS but is not allowed. It is his right to play his nations the way he wants to play them. If it’s not how other people like so what. He is the one paying for the turn not them. Whatever his reasons for wanting to be part of the PRS it shouldn’t matter, he should be allowed every right that every other player is allowed. The only difference I can see between him and other people who manipulate the VP’s and PRS is that he announced it beforehand. People have been doing it silently since I’ve been playing and will continue to do so in the future.
I would like to know why exactly he is being excluded. I want to know why Harlequin Games is refusing him a right that everyone else has.
Paddy McDermitt
I could be mistaken but individual victory conditions are no longer used for anything, are they? <if I’m wrong it’s only because I don’t really care about such things> also…I think multi-class characters are great and I see no reason why that should be included in a list of you evil bastards why did you do this list…after all…any 10 commander can recruit every bit as many troops as a 30 point commander so why not build that pop center loyalty up as well…last but not least we all <or at least those of us that have been around for a while> have our horror stories about the nations that fiddled while rome burned <and of course those of us telling the story are always rome>…those fiddlers don’t seem to be around as long as the fighters are…could it be that the game isn’t much fun if all you do is sit there building up?..again I could be wrong but it seems that way to me
Originally posted by Branthus
[b]I would like to know why exactly he is being excluded. I want to know why Harlequin Games is refusing him a right that everyone else has.Paddy McDermitt [/b]
Clint already answered this, go back to the top of the thread. Note that MEGames is a Business, not a Human Rights Tribunal. If you throw your drink at your waiter, I’m kicking you out of my restaurant and never letting you back in. That’s My “right”.
Brad
As with you Blind One, I do not really know if individual conditions are still in use but I would have to assume they are.
As far as multi-class characters are concerned I love them. There are nations that should name some in your first batch of 4 characters of the game but for the most part most nations shouldn’t for some of the following reasons.
1)A ten commander can easily recruit because it is automatic but it unlikely he will be able to upgrade or downgrade. Any order that requires skill he will fail at except for that very rare time when luck has a part.
2)If this new commander is out in the field with an army his low rank directly affects the effectiveness of that army. He is also challenge bait. Yes depending on the nation people will automatically be scared of backups that might be in the army but when you play against someone like me it will work against you because I seek out all advantages.
3)If you do play against me and I see anything less than a commander in charge of an army you can bet for sure I’ll be doubling that character ASAP.
4)In the first part of the game ten thousand gold is a lot of money. That’s money that can go to much better use.
Overall, it is less effective for more money at the most important time of the game. There are nations that should name multi-class characters first thing. Elrond, Galadriel, and some other good characters should have company commanders that can guard them and move for them. The noldo should name at least two command/agents first thing. He has the emmies already and the stealth bonus could make those characters very powerful later on.
After the first four characters as long as the nation has the money to do it they can name all the multi skills they want. Excluding nations who have double scout/recon, or names emmies, mages at 40 considering each games circumstances.
And those fiddlers, those fiddlers sit behind me sometimes and build knowing that in order to get through me they have to knock me over. Those fiddlers do stay around and come out on top. Why, because while I’m throwing my commanders into walls to die they have triple skills building up since turn 2. I’m not going to waste anyone’s time by listing all the examples but you should get my point.
And in regards to VEO,
I do not think that Clint gave a very good explanation of why he cannot join the PRS. His answer was this…
“1) I won’t let you participate because you’ve mentioned that you will specifically attempt to derail the system as you don’t agree with it. I’m not interested in having that attitude participate in this and reserve the right, for the good of the other players, to not allow you to participate.”
His other reasons were not about why he couldn’t join. They fell off the topic.
My problem is that Clint said, “I’m not interested in having that attitude participate.” If Clint was not interested in one of my character name can he remove me from the PRS. If I didn’t like steak would that then be a good reason. The plain fact is that Darrel Shimel pays the same costs we pay to play and deserves the right to be part of it.
Please, someone show me the examples of what harm Darrel can cause to the system and let us break it down and see how harmful to business it can be. If it entirely resides inside of the game then he should not be punished for his methods of play, other than a good ranking system that describes him as someone people don’t want to play with. Just because you disagree with the way someone plays doesn’t give you the right to punish them. Personally, I don’t like fence sitters, nation builders, and point gatherers but they are the ones paying the money, not you, and certainly not Harlequin. I simply do not join games with them.
Paddy McDermitt
well, differences in playing style make the game interesting so I’ll assume you merely prefer single class characters and mentioning it really had little to do with the topic at hand…that topic being sandbagging…or at least that’s what I took the topic to be…as far as the advantages of single vs multiclass…one can argue the point of views you expressed…one could argue back that a multiclass character will never have a wasted order and isn’t likely to remain in an opponents dungeon half the game plus the skill ranks go up so fast early in their creation they quickly reach the minimum levels of proficiency held by single class created characters…only they reach that proficiency in more then one area of expertise…guess it all boils down to what you want them to do both short term and long term
I’m kinda glad Clint and crew are trying to prevent someone whose stated goal is to screw up a game I may be in at sometime from doing that.
darrle’s just lucky harly is in control and not gsi. Can you imagine how many mistakes would be made on his turns in the old days after telling the old crew stuff like that. Thats just my opinion.
Nick
Originally posted by Nick
I’m kinda glad Clint and crew are trying to prevent someone whose stated goal is to screw up a game I may be in at sometime from doing that.
darrle’s just lucky harly is in control and not gsi. Can you imagine how many mistakes would be made on his turns in the old days after telling the old crew stuff like that. Thats just my opinion.
Nick
Good point about GSI! But Clint has only not allowed Darrell (apparently) to “opt in” to the PRS, in other words, he doesn’t show up on any lists and he doesn’t get an email with his scores. He plays in whatever games he wants and does in those game whatever he wants.
I’m in a game with Darrell where he’s attempting to make a stand against the PRS as a NEUTRAL. Well, a Neutral can do as he bloody well likes, can’t he? I should know… All Darrell is doing is building up to join the obviously winning team at the last minute. So these games have 4 neuts instead of 5, whoop-Dee! Everyone playing in them should be PLEASED as everyone hates neutrals anyway! (again, I should know…). On a team, Darrell is an excellent, experienced and extremely knowledgeable TEAM player. I’d play on Darrell’s team anyday, just not in 233 'cause he’s likely to join mine enemy’s sometime soon… 
Brad
However I see a big difference between someone trying to get a high score and someone out to screw everything up. It’s been my limited experience that people that try to screw things up in a limited way end up screwing everything up in a big way.
Darrel may well be an excellent player , that’s not the point.
He had some good points about PRS but he has lost the battle for now. PRS is a done deal. It may change if harly sees it as a detriment to their bottom line. They’ve shown me good buiseness sense so far. Jeez it sounds like at times darrel thinks harly shouldn’t be making any money whatsoever.
I also run a small buisiness and for the amount of money darrel adds to bottom line I would not put up with half of what harly has from just the posts I’ve read. He would be history. I sure wouldn’t respond to any of his posts anymore at the very least.
Darrel do us all some good and try to talk the price of gas down. Here you arte trying to argue to save a couple pennies a month whereas gas you could save us a lot more.
nick
the only adverse effect I’ve noticed from the prs so far is it’s caused the english to drive on the wrong side of the road…has anyone else noticed anything other then that?
@88 Noldo
the reason I support Clint and the staff is that they provide good service and I want them to keep that up. There have been some occasions on which I had different opinions, but we have sorted that out in a sensible way. Note that I don’t agree with everything in this game, but I accept that harly has to take into regard the likings of the majoritiy of the players and also their economic viewpoint.
Due to the facts that most PBM games are run in a semi-professional way and the contact between players and GM is quite personal, many tend to forget that harly is a company and they have to make their living from this. Single players hold no rights against harly to enforce that the game is run the way the players want , they can only try to get as much influence a possible (and nobody can deny that MEPBM players have many options to do this) - but not by flaiming and threatening. I want to keep that influence I have, and I don’t want Clint to be fed up with discussing with the players. If somebody does not agree with harly and the discussion does not turn out the way he wants, he either can accept that or quit and withdraw his payments - as it is usual in business. Maligning the game for a large majority of content customers is something no company would accept.
well, to be honest, the real reason is that Clint is giving away one free turn for every supportive post on the board, but don’t tell anybody… ;o)
Bernd, I don’t disagree with you. I’m accepting you have withdrawn the censorship bit, in a lefthanded manner.