Sorry lads not really been too interested in this sorta thing. It has always
been the case that a hoarder and less aggressive player can amasss wealth
and victory points. The game as it is means if players don't like it then
they have to be the ones to do something. e.g a 1650 Eothraim player can
recruit and get his troops killed in massive battles. His VC's will drop
dramatically and his economic base isn't so great that the resultant
increase in funds will raise his VC's to the same degree. Therefore it has
always been the case that the players that put it on the line and churn out
cannon-fodder for the great war hopes of their respective team will end up
with a lower standing than they might have done. Good play isn't the same as
being rated as good.
Perhaps it'd be better to have a vote at the end of the game. Even if the
Witch King or Northern Gondor(both very frontline 1650) get canned early
doors then the players, possibly even their enemies with whom they fought so
gallantly(stubbornly), can mention that and give an appropriate score for
that nation.
It'd be simpler and fairer, I think. So how about it, a simple questionnaire
that all players in the game fill in at the games end?
The proposed Player Ratings have nothing to do with VC's
or VP's. They're completely different, designed for the
exact reasons you've explained. They're based on how many
winning teams you're on mostly. VC's play no part.
Brad
--- "A.D.Jeffrey" <Lionatus@madasafish.com> wrote: > Sorry lads not
really been too interested in this sorta thing. It has
···
always
been the case that a hoarder and less aggressive player can amasss
wealth
and victory points. The game as it is means if players don't like it
then
they have to be the ones to do something. e.g a 1650 Eothraim player
can
recruit and get his troops killed in massive battles. His VC's will
drop
dramatically and his economic base isn't so great that the resultant
increase in funds will raise his VC's to the same degree. Therefore
it has
always been the case that the players that put it on the line and
churn out
cannon-fodder for the great war hopes of their respective team will
end up
with a lower standing than they might have done. Good play isn't the
same as
being rated as good.
Perhaps it'd be better to have a vote at the end of the game. Even if
the
Witch King or Northern Gondor(both very frontline 1650) get canned
early
doors then the players, possibly even their enemies with whom they
fought so
gallantly(stubbornly), can mention that and give an appropriate score
for
that nation.
It'd be simpler and fairer, I think. So how about it, a simple
questionnaire
that all players in the game fill in at the games end?
Also, they`d just become a popularity contest, and when are they ever
right? American elections anyone?
I think the ratings [from what i have learned] are designed to be
impartial.
David
--- In mepbmlist@y..., Player <pbmnoot@y...> wrote:
The proposed Player Ratings have nothing to do with VC's
or VP's. They're completely different, designed for the
exact reasons you've explained. They're based on how many
winning teams you're on mostly. VC's play no part.
Brad
--- "A.D.Jeffrey" <Lionatus@m...> wrote: > Sorry lads not
really been too interested in this sorta thing. It has
> always
> been the case that a hoarder and less aggressive player can amasss
> wealth
> and victory points. The game as it is means if players don't like
it
> then
> they have to be the ones to do something. e.g a 1650 Eothraim
player
> can
> recruit and get his troops killed in massive battles. His VC's
will
> drop
> dramatically and his economic base isn't so great that the
resultant
> increase in funds will raise his VC's to the same degree.
Therefore
> it has
> always been the case that the players that put it on the line and
> churn out
> cannon-fodder for the great war hopes of their respective team
will
> end up
> with a lower standing than they might have done. Good play isn't
the
> same as
> being rated as good.
>
> Perhaps it'd be better to have a vote at the end of the game.
Even if
> the
> Witch King or Northern Gondor(both very frontline 1650) get canned
> early
> doors then the players, possibly even their enemies with whom they
> fought so
> gallantly(stubbornly), can mention that and give an appropriate
score
···
> for
> that nation.
>
> It'd be simpler and fairer, I think. So how about it, a simple
> questionnaire
> that all players in the game fill in at the games end?
>
> Alan J.
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> The proposed Player Ratings have nothing to do with VC's
> or VP's. They're completely different, designed for the
> exact reasons you've explained. They're based on how many
> winning teams you're on mostly. VC's play no part.
>
> Brad
1) Istari was leaning towards being used with the VP's compared
to the average of the nation - VP's in a completely new direction.
2) MEGames asked whether to include VC's or not. I believe there
may have been one partially supportive comment in regards to VC's
against a multitude of "NO!!"'s - I certainly hope and expect that
whatever PR ends up using the VP's to whatever extent, the VC's
will not be included.
> > The proposed Player Ratings have nothing to do with VC's
> > or VP's. They're completely different, designed for the
> > exact reasons you've explained. They're based on how many
> > winning teams you're on mostly. VC's play no part.
> >
> > Brad
Have we finally had the announcement that the proposed Istari rating
has
been scrapped? Did I miss it?
Laurence G. Tilley
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
No we're adding another rating. Istari has been altered as a comparative rating with the average rating as described earlier. I'll compile this information and the emails sent in into a new version of the file so that we can discuss that.
···
> The proposed Player Ratings have nothing to do with VC's
> > or VP's. They're completely different, designed for the
> > exact reasons you've explained. They're based on how many
> > winning teams you're on mostly. VC's play no part.
> >
> > Brad
Have we finally had the announcement that the proposed Istari rating has
been scrapped?
I suggest Numenor as the 5th "voting rating" name or Illuvatar or White Council/Council of the Wise. Any of those names grab you?
I am looking for a format for this at present. At present it's probably going to be a simple voting system where you vote for the top 5 Players on your team and top 5 Nations of the opposition.
1) Istari was leaning towards being used with the VP's compared
to the average of the nation - VP's in a completely new direction.
2) MEGames asked whether to include VC's or not. I believe there
may have been one partially supportive comment in regards to VC's
against a multitude of "NO!!"'s - I certainly hope and expect that
whatever PR ends up using the VP's to whatever extent, the VC's
will not be included.
