An individual rating that increases when you win and
decreases when you lose (excepting exceptional circumstances).
The only variables are the similar ratings of all the players
in the game - if your Team beats a better team, you gain more,
and vice versa.
Problem 1 - Neutrals get together to declare for quick and
easy victory, thus rating increase.
A- The increase would be minimal due to much higher total
winning team rating, might even be negative!
B- Player complaints and possible GM sanctions against
collusion.
C- I contend the opposite will occur! How many neutrals right
now declare out of a sense of Game Balance? Not just a motivation
for a longer and more interesting game, but now it can net you
a greater increase in rating points! How many allies say:
"Okay, we have 1 NW, 1 South and the Easterlings, let's burn
the others because lopsided games are no fun". Happens all
the time. Ratings will increase those types of decisions, not
decrease them.
Problem 2 - Eliminated/Dropped Allegiance nations count.
Many parallels to professional competitive endeavors have been
used to support the desire to "score" the players, but here,
I've only seen "fairness" invoked to support rewarding inactive
allegiance nations. (??)
The Eothraim who plays his butt off but finally succombs to
his many wounds is not the same as the many times SS'd Dwarf
who finally disappears via drop is not the same as the
inexperienced Cardolan who not only recruits 1700 HI a turn,
but also buys them steel, before succombing to his self-
inflicted wounds.
Yet, they're all treated "equally"? If this team wins, many
will contend the Eo deserved the increase...but the Cardy
players was at least "trying" too, right? If this team loses,
the Eo player loses just as many rating points as the Dwarf and
Cardy players (who may very well have been responsible for the
loss??). How is this "fair"?
A- I contend that it is NOT fair. The last players of inactive
or eliminated nations should neither count towards the score,
nor have their own rating affected.
This is a TEAM rating - a good team will find a way to keep their
players in it. Why couldn't the Eo find a back-up? Unwilling
to communicate ("Oh well guys, I'm done! It was fun slugging it
out, wow! See ya around!")..??? Or, why didn't the Team
make sure the crucial 949 had the Eo emissary's name spelled
correctly? Why didn't the Team find a replacement for the
Dwarf when he disappeared? Or send in back-up orders in case
of SS's? Why didn't the Team find a gentle way to teach
Cardolan ME Economics 101?
If, for whatever reason, this team wins, including these nations
in the calculation will reduce the rating change for the players
who were able to end the game, decreasing the amount of gain
they otherwise would receive - that's not "fair" either!
Can you tell I really like this rating? It supports better
team play and increases the number of stand-by's picked up.
Better, longer games.
Brad Brunet
ยทยทยท
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca