>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.
With the proposed (Games Won / Games Played In) current ME Games suggestion, a drop would be counted no more harshly than a loss. 2 losses and 2 drops out of 10 games would get you 6 wins / 10 games = 60%.
Another player suggested than an addition step be added. That step would be to divide the win % as calculated above, by the number of drops. The only reason I could see for the suggestion was to punish drops. I don't mind punishing drops, but I see this as a not very well thought through suggestion. For one thing, anyone who had never dropped would have an undefined score as division by 0 is impossible. Anyone with 2 drops could NEVER get above 50%. 100% wins / 2 drops = 50%.
ME Games then made a comment that truely blew my mind. It insinuated that the Nazgul rating would be subject to the 98% normalizing effect. I don't see how this could possibly work. If Nazgul rating is win %, then a newbie that wins his first game is 100%. How can his win % drop below 100% just becasue a few months had passed. If he then wins his second game, is his 100% averaged with his degraded 90% to make 2 for 2 = to a Nazgul of 95%???
I'd hate to see ANY averaging or degridation of the Nazgul rating. Your win% is your win%.
A final question. Would transferring a position to a new player be considered a drop? I'm torn. You haven't damaged your team... Then again, if a transfer is not punished, anyone seeking to have a 100% win could find a friend to transfer any losing positions to so that he is not harmed by the loss. Yes, I do think transfers should be punished.
Note: That means that with Harley, I have a 0 Nazgul rating. I've started 4 games with them. One I transfered to a new player due to job loss, and the other 3 are still running. I'm 0 of 1....
NOW, if you go back to the GSI/DGE days.... I'd show a little better!
>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.
No. This has never been answered. I've asked wht they are for, and been told that they are to make the game more fun. I ask "more fun for whom and how?" and receive the "You've already been answerd" response. I've asked a half dozen times, and still have NEVER gotten an answer.
More fun for whom, and how?
Okay, maybe I was answered and I just missed it. Please answer again for us pea brains.
>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.
It isn't like I just brought the debate back here. For over a month I've been saying that the most simple system would be the best. In fact, the whole Nazgul system as it is now proposed is a direct result of me "bringing the debate full circle over and over and over again.
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).
RIGHT. There are 2 MAJOR drawback to the proposed systems. One, they impose someone else's judgement onto what is a good player. The second is even worse. People will likely change their play style to match what that "numerical monster" says is a good player.
Games dropped is a broader issue, because one man's unreasonable drop, is
another's perfectly justifiable one.
Which is why there shuld be no room for judgement. Flat rule. Games won / games played in.
Final turns after team concessions are another issue on which a ruling
needs to be made.
Another interesting point. Back in the GSI days, most players played the final turn as the GWCs were worth about $15(free startup). You'd run the final turn to make sure you or your friend got the free setup. It was a breakeven and you got to see the nation of your choosing up there in the top 3.
As with you, I have no desire to throw money at a dead game. Results should be "as they are at the moment one team declares they are quitting".
Darrell Shimel
···
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus