It seems those that want ratings are at least putting forward half-decent
suggestions. I think we are missing a big point though. What does it matter
for those that play the Woodmen regularly to know that, despite being 615'ed
out of the game, they played better than the average Woodie. Its the
challenge such players want hence their choice of the position. If randomly
allocated they must have at least suggested some level of preference.
Therefore do ratings reall matter that much to players who more often than
not never usually appear in the top 3 during or even at the end of the game?
Its a game guys and those that play often know who's good to be with. If you
don't the chances are you know someone you know does. Lets just play, have
fun and banter and leave the real arguments and pointed-jibes for the
taxman, where it belongs(apologies if you are a taxman).
Let Clint come up with something to begin with at least and then we can
suggest changes from something instead of redesigning without reference.
It'd be easier, not suggesting implementing from games, using a sample case
study e.g. game xyz FP victory nats 1-10(results etc.) and then letting
people see how it'd turn out. So, a bit of breathing space for Clint and
then we can argue about it again when he says 'How about this?'.
Final note. Leave this to those that want ratings. For those of us that
don't really care, perhaps we should just concentrate on other debates.
Alan J.