Hi all
Whoever has thought of the ratings has done a good bit of original thought
& congrats to them.
However, I dont like the idea of ratings. I dont see how they can
accomodate the value of playing different positions (e.g. someone who wins
as Woodmen should score more highly than someone who wins as a Harad
declaring on t20 ), and I dont see how that can accomodate the value of
someone playing against better or worse position specific opposition (e.g.
a Woodmen who wins versus a brilliant WK & Dragonlord, despite weak dwarves,
Nmen and Sinda should score more highly still).
You might say that all these things even themselves out over the long run, &
you might be right - the long run being 20+ games = 5+ years for most of us.
You might go on to say that anyone who doesnt like the ratings can ignore
them - and I would. But I think some people would modify their game play to
try to do better in ratings at the expense of the team, and I would really
really hate that.....
The only ratings that I would truely be interested in, would be a private
rating communicated at end of game that measured your performance vs the
average of your position before you. So, I would be interested to know that
as NG I eliminated 25000HI and 4 MTs, when the average was 20000 and the
best was 35000, for example. This just as a gentle way of helping me gauge
my performance....
Cheers all
Mike