I know i haven`t been following this very closely, well much at all
actually, but what are the point of the ratings?
The possibility that independent games may be set up
a little more balanced than many that we've seen - all
newbies on one side (FP of all!) and all vets out to slaughter
them like penned cattle on the other...
Also fun. Most organized competitive pasttimes have a rating
system or such. Tennis, gold, chess, etc. It's an added
feature or dimension, if you will.
Are they to be used for anything or is it just an exercise in
bragging rights?
Both, as per above.
Are the ratings to be published like our much-loved School League
Tables?
Published on the MEGames web site, I would expect. The
odd email out also, why not?
Can players opt out?
I've heard Clint support that option.
Why the Four different ratings? Are these the options being discussed
or are they gonna be used in different scenarios?
The Four ratings are briefly as such:
The first one is an individual rating based on winning the
game as a team. The current ratings of all the players involved
are taken into account to calculate that games "change" in rating.
The players on the winning team Increase their rating by the
"change", the players on the losing team Decrease their rating by
the "change". The greater discrepancy between teams, the
greater the "change" may be: if what starts off as a much worse
(lower rated) team beats a better team, the "change" is a higher
number than if the better team beats the worse team.
The second one is an individual rating that is designed to
measure "experience". It is similar to the first, excepting
it also takes in # of turns that game lasted. If you play long
games the rating increases more than short games. If you play
with higher rated players, your rating will increase more than
a similar length game with lower rated players.
The third one, the much despised "Istari" rating, is based on
Victory Points and your placeing at the game end. It is, frankly,
simply a rewriting of the VP's in a different format, so it isn't
as if the company is inventing anything new here. Current talk
is revolving around: instead of making the Istari rating a
straight sum of VP's, make it based on the difference between
your VP score with THAT NATION and the average VP score for
THAT NATION. So, your poorly played Noldo with 1000 VP's
will rate worse off than your amazingly played Woodmen with
1000 VP's.
The fourth rating is based on Teams only, not the players.
Teams will be identified by their captains and will qualify
as long as a minimum number of players are constant on it.
It's calculated strictly according to team wins and losses.
This may be a discussion point to replace the current
World Championship system, that is apparently losing
steam. The players will still earn (or lose) points toward
the other ratings when they play on a "registered" team,
and the Team itself will earn points in this category.
The first two are based on the ratings of the players involved
and which team won. That has nothing to do with specific
scenarios. Neither does the fourth, the "team" rating.
The "Istari" rating would be somewhat affected, but calculated
similarly, no? MY 1650 Woodmen vs the average of all 1650
Woodmen or MY 2950 Woodmen vs the average of all 2950
Woodmen. Same thing, no need for seperate lists. FA was
raised, but similarly, based the Istari rating on the
average Kingdom score or the average non-kingdom nation
score.
Is there a prize for coming top!!!
Others have been debating whether it's a McDonalds
voucher or directions to Laurences chip shop (only
on Thursdays, was it?)
Also, one last point, do players have to have played in a certain
amount of games to qualify [a bit like a QB in the NFL having had to
throw so many times to qualify for a rating]?
They haven't fully fleshed out how it will begin and
how it will be maintained. This only makes sense, though
doesn't it (minimum # of at bats required, etc...)
I`m sure all of these points have been covered elsewhere, but i was
hoping someone might answer without me having to plough through all
those list messages!
They were and you're welcome. Away from the facts,
as I recall them, and into the realm of opinion:
Be wary when reading violent protests against the
ratings. Are they due to fear of change? Or are
they simply applying decades old arguments previously
applied to Victory Points? If it's the anti-VP
crowd, recall that only one of the 4 ratings use VP's, and
with luck, they'll use VP's not as a straight comparison
between different nations, but will actually improve their
existence by using them to compare how you played your nation
with the average for that nation.
Considering MEGames didn't invent the VP's, and that
they're working hard to lessen their individualistic
motivations, I support their efforts to distract players
form the "Top 3" nations on page one and redirect them to
a Player Ratings listing that mostly rewards good team play.
Will I work hard to increase my rating and try and get my
name higher on the list? I can't imagine it. To get higher
on the list, I would have to be on more winning teams than
losing teams, and, frankly, I work pretty hard at most of my
games already. I can't imagine a drastic change in player
behavior as a result of these ratings, excepting the added
fun of 'bragging" rights (or the ammunition to call me even
more names...) as you mentioned.
As for the VP problems, well, they only matter if your
team wins anyway, don't they? As for various arguments
that list specific scenarios within the realm of
possibility: sure, many odd things can and do happen,
but over time the numbers will average out. I've personally
placed very highly and quite lowly in VP's. I've beaten
much better teams and lost to much worse teams. Everything
averages out over time. The numbers will eventually, with
enough games, become statistically meaningful.
Cheers,
Brad Brunet
···
--- sootypye69 <sootypye69@hotmail.com> wrote:
cheers,
David.
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
