> The last thing I want is a list of "cunning" players or players that
> spend
> the most money being shoved in my face once a month as "the best"
> players.
>
> Darrell ShimelI've always agreed with your motivations as such. I just
disagree with your expected numbers. With 700 or so players
in Harley's files, you're going to get all types. Right now,
even without getting anything for it, we still run across
multiple players chasing VP's. Even newbies seem to find
it suitable to yammer on about "winning", etc. It stuns me.
I've not seen a VP oriented player since I've been playing with Harley. Granted, that is only 4 games, but there were some in almost every game back in the GSI/DGE days of the VPs meaning something.
Take a bell curve, and all those "cunning" players you mention
are already here. They're already being "cunning" as you
put it.
You get what you reward. For some it is cool having your nation listed in the top 3. However, only you and your team mates ever see that number right now. IF there becomes a number that is published once a month, and is listed on the web site, and can be used as some sort of "bragging rights", your bell curve will be shoved a long way toward the "cunning" and away from "fun" end of the motivation scale.
I believe that ANYTHING that returns to curve toward the bad old days of self-centered play, cunning nation selection and calcualted neutral declaration is a very bad idea.
Finally, I see no gain at all from the "neato" numbers as you put it. Those that "scam the system" will get high rankings. Those that play against equal opponents, choose weaker nations, or pick sides based on "fun to play" are more likely to have lower scores and have that "bragged in their faces" by the iceholes. I find nothing neato in that. In fact, I find it very un-neato.
But right now,they're chasing selfish, anti-team
VP's. I've played in a few games where VP players have sat
around complaining that the rest of us haven't ended it yet,
then when their scores drop off (oddly, they try to increase
their scores selfishly and us who are fighting away bump
them down...lesson? naw, it'll be lost on them...) they
DROP! BEST thing that can happen - get those nations
picked up and win the game! Been there, done that, likely
have to do it again soon..
I don't think anyone wants to be on the losing team. There is already maximum motivation to encourage people to win. What the proposed ranking system will do is reward short games against weaker opponents, neutrals piling on one side, and many other un-fun aspects of the game. What veteran is going to want to join a team with a lot of newbies to try to mentor them along? NO ONE interested in their ranking.
The best think I can say is that I'll probably have a low ranking simply because I don't play 6-8 games at a time and I don't choose positions based on likely to get a good score. That will make it all the sweeter when I beat a ratings hound, and he takes a big rankings hit for losing to a low ranked player.
Take the same bell curve, and all those "cunning" players
you mention are still there. They're now being "cunning" as
you put it. But NOW, they're chasing the TEAM win instead
of the individual.
No, they are taking neutrals, piling onto one side, winning lots of 5-10 turn games, and racking up the ranking points.
Same argument for "late declaring" neutrals. They jump
already for the VP win. They'll jump later for the PRS
increase. Same players, same behavior, nothing AT ALL
changing for them, but, as far as I can see, nothing
will really change.
Except now instead of just them and others in the game knowing they were on the winning side, everyone will get it shoved in their face as to how great a player this guy is becuase he has a high ranking because he is frequently on the winning side.
That's why some of us are more prone to "forceful" replies
to your posts than maybe others - we believe we're agreeing
and don't understand why you can't see that (mind you, I
don't think you've ever addressed that particular aspect
of the debate, if you have, I apologize.).
But you aren't even close to agreeing. You can't win the argument by hiding your posts in sheep's clothing. You can't say we agree, when we don't, and expect me to believe you.
I believe ranking will have no positive effects on game play, but many negative effects on game play, and therefore, NO RANKING system should be implimented at all. NOW, agree or disagree with that!
Don't try to subvert my points with lies that we agree, when we don't.
And I think we ALL like Win%. Some of us just want more
"neato" numbers to play with...
I'd love "neato" numbers. However, every suggestion I've seen from the pro-ranking side are very un-neato.
Darrell Shimel
···
_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month.� Try MSN! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
My NM position with one character and 2 (or was it one) pc is a brag and I still enjoy it. Ie have fun from it.