Ratings... Duh?

mepbmlist
#1

I followed the critique of your Nazgul rating, where someone pointed out
that a chap who wins 98 out of 100 games gets a 50 rating. You need to
subtract the number of games lost, rather then divide by them, and for
goodness sake, PLEASE spend some time presenting the suggestions more
clearly. Your actual proposal here was quite simple, but I had to read it
3 times - you'd made a simple sum look like advanced algebra.

See just how complicated it is. I wasn't critiqueing their suggestion. I was pointing out a flaw in in a suggested change. Another player suggested that win % be divided by number of drops to get a Nazgul rating. I felt this was very bad, as, 2 drops would prevent you from EVER being above 50%. (100% win / 2 drops = 50 rating)

I still don't understad what the rankings were supposed to do. Make the game more fun. For whom? Those trying to "work the system" that get to see a monthly list with themselves at the top. Fun for players who don't work the system that get told that those that do are the best players. Fun for those that pick up a game that ends 2 turns later that see thier ranking drop. Fun for the person that is in a game that someone drops at the first sign of trouble so that the game won't count against their favored ranking number. Fun for the people that totally ignore the system, but find themselves attacked by allies late in a game because those "allies" suddenly care about the VC thing again. Fun for the person that just fears some of this crap will happen.

Fun for whom, and exactly how?

If it is to judge the experience and skill of players to assist in creating gamse against equal opposition, than ANYTHING other than "Games played in, Games won, Win %, Games Dropped" is overkill.

Darrell

···

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

#2

See just how complicated it is. I wasn't critiqueing their suggestion. I
was pointing out a flaw in in a suggested change. Another player suggested
that win % be divided by number of drops to get a Nazgul rating. I felt
this was very bad, as, 2 drops would prevent you from EVER being above 50%.
(100% win / 2 drops = 50 rating)

*** As this was your suggestion Darrell how should it be presented? What equations should I use? Note all ratings are factored by the 98% rule (on page one of the ratings).

but find

themselves attacked by allies late in a game because those "allies" suddenly
care about the VC thing again.

*** No VCs here - I have removed them.

If it is to judge the experience and skill of players to assist in creating

gamse against equal opposition, than ANYTHING other than "Games played in,
Games won, Win %, Games Dropped" is overkill.

Can you show me how to present that please? Off list if you want to discuss it so that I can come up with a final product?

Thanks

Clint

#3

See just how complicated it is. I wasn't critiqueing their suggestion. I
was pointing out a flaw in in a suggested change. Another player suggested
that win % be divided by number of drops to get a Nazgul rating. I felt
this was very bad, as, 2 drops would prevent you from EVER being above 50%.
(100% win / 2 drops = 50 rating)

Or even 2 losses. Unless I've misunderstood. Which could well be the case.

I still don't understad what the rankings were supposed to do. Make the
game more fun. For whom?

Yes, but you've had this answered lots of times. There's also another element - making it easier to recruit team mates and match teams.

If it is to judge the experience and skill of players to assist in creating
gamse against equal opposition, than ANYTHING other than "Games played in,
Games won, Win %, Games Dropped" is overkill.

Interestingly, you've brought the debate full circle to what I was proposing some 18 months ago - a simple data table. Games won (i.e. times on winning team), Games lost, Date started play, Preferred scenario. I'd be just as happy with this access to the raw data, as with any of the complex, hyper-complex and mega-complex systems which have been proposed. All of them, to my mind impose someone else's judgement as to what is significant onto the reader (especially newbies). If I'm given the basic data, I'm quite capable of deciding for myself what columns I want to look at. I can even manage to divide one by the other, if I should so wish.

Games dropped is a broader issue, because one man's unreasonable drop, is another's perfectly justifiable one.

Final turns after team concessions are another issue on which a ruling needs to be made. When a team concedes defeat, there are sometimes player on the victorious side, who feel the urge to submit a "final turn". Other more thrifty folk, such as myself would never dream of doing such a thing. But the practice will skew the ratings. Technically I'm a "drop" if I do not pump more cash into my account for the final turn against a dead opposition, and, if VPs are to be counted in any form in the ratings, a player who puts in final orders effectively buys a higher rating for cash.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 00:10 08/11/2002, corsairs game 101 wrote:

#4

... effectively buys a higher rating for cash.

Maybe this is the solution to the whole debate - sell the ratings! It
has the virtue of simplicity. It could work sort of like selling
papal indulgences. It might help hold down turn processing costs, too.

With tongue firmly on cheek,

Mark Jaede