But good players don't neccesarily have to be on the winning side
either. A
Corsairs jumping onto a winning DS side can't be seen to be a good
player.
Sneaky diplomat maybe but good player? How do you define hisrole when
he
perhaps didn't even take part in the war.
Over time, with enough finished games, the better players
will be on more winning teams. If "expert" players play
around with the game, using the BS to RA 8 arties a turn
to compare to the known lists, or name 10 emissaries to
run around provoking the encounter database, then they
lose as a result of their play and are rated accordingly.
The sneaky diplomat happens, sure. I've also seen neutrals
jumped by other neutrals early, or steamrolled by an allegiance
because they already decided they had enough neutrals or
this or that or whatever. Nature of the game. How many of
these instances happen amongst the 25 nations who start each
game? 1 a game (a mere 4%) ? No where near that often.
Anecdotes are minor blips of memory within a huge pool of
experience, remembered only because they lay outside the
norm - which is exactly my point.
Some of the best players go down in flames gloriously despite their
best
efforts. Their team invariably gets some much needed breathing space
through
his prolonged demise. If that team then does not win how then would
his
staunch and admirable play be viewed, considering they lost?
Better players find ways, more often than not, of helping
their team win, NOT ONLY by playing their own nation very
well. Leaders are social and diplomatic and are able to
motivate, teach, advise, bully, etc, the rest of the team
and often the neutrals, into joining his/her/their gameing
style, leading to victory more often than not.
Many excellent and knowledgeable players do not communicate.
They will generally, over time, rate lower then less able
players who communicate more. That's because it's a Team
game and one's overall Team results is what's being rated.
And if the odd game is lost, so be it, one out of how many?
And if the odd excellently played game is lost, it's obviously
to an ever better team (more likely than not) and the players
rating will not decrease as much as if he lost to a poor
team.
I've known many who claim to be excellent players (and
always brag about how many games they've "won") who turn
out to be more of a hinderance to the team's success than
an eager and communicative newbie.
Playing good isn't the same as being good. Likewise winning games
doesn't
mean you're good either. Teamwork can be guaged but individual stats
are
much harder to define.
The simple questionnaire could have a rating system that each player
would
fill in. Say a value from 1 - 10 for each question with 10 being
excellent
and 1 being pretty duff. The questions could be based on -
Co-operation within team(Own Nations)
Co-ordination within team(Own Nations)
Communication level(Neutrals)
Challenge level(for enemies only thus for a winning team a chance to
show
their appreciation for a good game to specific enemies. Would need a
sub-clause thingy then for possibly Most feared Enemy Nation. Most
Feared
Enemy Army. Most Feared Enemy Char. These could be individual as each
nation
would have fought different foes and met different challenges.)
I'd welcome an end game poll/vote/questionnaire and participate
fully. Problem being participation. I doubt (and I've been
backed up by experience here) that enough players would
participate in even the simplest poll to make it meaningful.
The more complicated you make it (add questions, rate out of
ten instead of simply vote for a player, etc), you'll lose
participation exponentially.
In this way players can comment on every player in the game.
Obviously lack
of interaction will average out scores as say 5 on the scale is
little/no
contact with the lower areas being bad/rude/unwanted attention etc.
Alan J.
Regards,
Brad Brunet
···
--- "A.D.Jeffrey" <Lionatus@madasafish.com> wrote:
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
