Ratings and Trust

mepbmlist
#1

I don't think I've stuck my head into this discussion yet, so....

Personally, I like the idea of player ratings a great deal, for several reasons.

For one, I like having something other than the current victory to play for. I like the thought of having some cumulative rating to compare myself with other players.

More importantly, I like the idea of having some idea of who I'm going into a game with. I play both grudge and random, and when I play freestyle, I want to know what kind of people I'm with. If I see on turn 0 that a player with a 2 rating is playing that position, that means I better email him fast to get him up to speed. Likewise, if I see a Noldor player with a 20, I know I can trust that position to take care of itself, and possibly coordinate others.

I certainly don't see ratings as an end-all, be-all, or as some foundation for my ego, but I do think they can provide motivation and information, and frankly I see little downside to a well-designed system.

      jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord

#2

Jason Bennett wrote:

More importantly, I like the idea of having some idea of who I'm going
into a game with. I play both grudge and random, and when I play
freestyle, I want to know what kind of people I'm with. If I see on turn
0 that a player with a 2 rating is playing that position, that means I
better email him fast to get him up to speed. Likewise, if I see a
Noldor player with a 20, I know I can trust that position to take care
of itself, and possibly coordinate others.

What do you do if you, or somebody else, sees a rating they don't like? Ask
for your money back? Drop the game and try again later? Are we going to see
games where players ask for "only 12-point or above" team mates?

As you can tell, I find this whole discussion farcical. The rules on victory
as they were written were laudable. They just didn't take into account the
reality of human nature. Particularly games player nature. In games, as in
real life, you have to put up with the good and the bad and try to make the
best of it. I can think of at least one game I've played in which it would
have been the "20-pointers" dropping, leaving the "2 or less" players behind
in an otherwise completely salvageable situation. How would your points
scheme change that?

Gavin

#3

Gavinwj wrote:

0 that a player with a 2 rating is playing that position, that means I
better email him fast to get him up to speed. Likewise, if I see a
Noldor player with a 20, I know I can trust that position to take care
of itself, and possibly coordinate others.

What do you do if you, or somebody else, sees a rating they don't like? Ask
for your money back? Drop the game and try again later? Are we going to see
games where players ask for "only 12-point or above" team mates?

As I said above, if I see a rating that's low in an important position, that gives me early warning that that player will need some extra handholding. I'm sure there will be drops because of that, but those drops would happen anyway. Better on turn 0 than turn 5.

And yes, we might see "12-point games." That seems like an excellent way to arrange grudge games. That could become discriminatory, but I don't think it will be more of a problem than it is today when people only play grudge games.

As you can tell, I find this whole discussion farcical. The rules on victory
as they were written were laudable. They just didn't take into account the
reality of human nature. Particularly games player nature. In games, as in

Why do you like the current structure? I think the various reasons as to why the current points in no way measure performance. Those points encourage backstabbing and fence-sitting. If the game had evolved more in that direction, the VCs would be useful. Since the game has evolved into more of a team-oriented approach (to its benefit, I would say), the VCs aren't useful.

have been the "20-pointers" dropping, leaving the "2 or less" players behind
in an otherwise completely salvageable situation. How would your points
scheme change that?

No point scheme can predict the future. There will always be

abberations and strangeness. The point is not to be perfect,

but to give an aggregate score to help measure player performance

and success.

        jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
Software developer, cryptography buff, gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord

#4

Jason Bennett wrote:

As you can tell, I find this whole discussion farcical. The rules on victory
as they were written were laudable. They just didn't take into account the
reality of human nature. Particularly games player nature. In games, as in

Why do you like the current structure?

I didn't say I do. However, the game was designed to be a *team* game first
and an *individual* game second: you cannot win as an individual unless your
team wins. It's stated quite clearly in the rules. Hence my comment about
them being laudable. The designers wanted players to put the team first and
then consider their own victory conditions.

Trouble is, it just ain't human nature. Even baseball has its prima donnas.

Gavin