We're discussing how to implement the changes to the Istari rating.
One suggestion that I have is to use a relative scale of scoring compared
with other players that have run that particular nation.
So a Woodmen's average rating (Winning team) might be 550. If you scored
more than that, say 800 VPs then your modified Istari score, regardless of
position would be 800-550 = 250. (If you scored less you would lose Istari
rating).
So players that run a position well get a bonus to their Istari score. It
would mean that players wanting a good Istari rating might well chose some
of the "weaker" nations which I think would be a nice benefit of this
rating.
I can have a losing rating as well - so you compare the score if you lose as
well as one for winning. (Eg the average score for a losing Woodmen
position might be 450 - and as a losing player I might gain 500 so I would
gain 50 Istari score.)
One thing to sort out is do I use the Victory points with or without the
Victory conditions as part of the score? I have the information that is
pertinent (with and without the points from VCs) but need to know which to
use.
What do players think about that? (Regardless of the issues of right or
wrong of the Player rating scheme which is preferable?)
I realise that you can have bad games with a nation - despite your best
efforts, but enough games played should help here.
One thing to sort out is do I use the Victory points with or without the
Victory conditions as part of the score? I have the information that is
pertinent (with and without the points from VCs) but need to know which to
use.
What do players think about that? (Regardless of the issues of right or
wrong of the Player rating scheme which is preferable?)
Its fine in principle ignoring the Player Rating Scheme issues. I have just
one question.. What would happen if you only play 4th age games ?
So a Woodmen's average rating (Winning team) might be 550. If you scored
more than that, say 800 VPs then your modified Istari score, regardless of
position would be 800-550 = 250. (If you scored less you would lose Istari
rating).
This is a good idea, but maybe there should be more of a cushion on the down side. I can see how mismanaging your nation should lead you to lose points, but it seems like there might be wild swings to the Istari score just because someone else was hoarding gold or armies.
One thing to sort out is do I use the Victory points with or without the
Victory conditions as part of the score? I have the information that is
pertinent (with and without the points from VCs) but need to know which to
use.
This is a good idea, but maybe there should be more of a cushion on the
down side. I can see how mismanaging your nation should lead you to lose
points, but it seems like there might be wild swings to the Istari score
just because someone else was hoarding gold or armies.
*** Maybe - that's the pain of using VPs with or without VCs and we can't negate half of them...
> One thing to sort out is do I use the Victory points with or without the
> Victory conditions as part of the score? I have the information that is
> pertinent (with and without the points from VCs) but need to know which to
> use.
I think it's the absolute best way to implement an individual rating.
Regardless of what people may think about individual ratings, this one
seems like the best way to go, since someone stuck with the Woodmen can
still get the best individual ratings boost of the game. I vote yes.
As to the "losing rating", I'm not certain how you'd implement that and
I don't know if it's worth the almost certain headaches it will cause,
but if you're willing to do the work then go ahead and give it a try. If
it doesn't work out, you can chuck it.
Mike Mulka
路路路
-----Original Message-----
From: Middle Earth PBM Games [mailto:me@MiddleEarthGames.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:04 AM
To: mepbmlist
Subject: [mepbmlist] Victory Points and Player Ratings
Hello here I am again...
We're discussing how to implement the changes to the Istari rating.
One suggestion that I have is to use a relative scale of
scoring compared with other players that have run that
particular nation.
So a Woodmen's average rating (Winning team) might be 550. If
you scored more than that, say 800 VPs then your modified
Istari score, regardless of position would be 800-550 = 250.
(If you scored less you would lose Istari rating).
So players that run a position well get a bonus to their
Istari score. It
would mean that players wanting a good Istari rating might
well chose some of the "weaker" nations which I think would be
a nice benefit of this rating.
I can have a losing rating as well - so you compare the score
if you lose as well as one for winning. (Eg the average score
for a losing Woodmen position might be 450 - and as a losing
player I might gain 500 so I would gain 50 Istari score.)
One thing to sort out is do I use the Victory points with or
without the Victory conditions as part of the score? I have
the information that is pertinent (with and without the points
from VCs) but need to know which to use.
What do players think about that? (Regardless of the issues
of right or wrong of the Player rating scheme which is preferable?)
I realise that you can have bad games with a nation - despite
your best efforts, but enough games played should help here.
Its fine in principle ignoring the Player Rating Scheme
issues. I have just one question.. What would happen if you
only play 4th age games ?
OOOOOOOH! Good question! I only play 4th Age games myself, so under the
proposed Istari system, I bascially wouldn't get rated. (I guess that
has a plus side, though, since the Istari rating isn't really important
to me.)
As to the "losing rating", I'm not certain how you'd implement that and
I don't know if it's worth the almost certain headaches it will cause,
but if you're willing to do the work then go ahead and give it a try. If
it doesn't work out, you can chuck it.
One thing we could do is use a nation's standard deviation, instead of just the average. As long as you stay within 1 SD of your nation's average, you get a mild increase in your Isatri. If you are above that, you get a bigger boost. If you go below that, you lose points.
Actually, my biggest concern is that your INDIVIDUAL rating can go up
while your team loses. This (taken by itself) won't do much to encourage
teamwork, and won't make those people who are greatly concerned about
this aspect of an individual rating any happier.
As to the "losing rating", I'm not certain how you'd implement that
and I don't know if it's worth the almost certain headaches it will
cause, but if you're willing to do the work then go ahead
and give it
a try. If it doesn't work out, you can chuck it.
One thing we could do is use a nation's standard deviation, instead of
just the average. As long as you stay within 1 SD of your nation's
average, you get a mild increase in your Isatri. If you are
above that,
you get a bigger boost. If you go below that, you lose points.
Actually, my biggest concern is that your INDIVIDUAL rating can go up
while your team loses. This (taken by itself) won't do much to encourage
teamwork, and won't make those people who are greatly concerned about
this aspect of an individual rating any happier.
True. OTOH, it's perfectly reasonable to play well on a losing team. I do hear you, though.
It would seem the Neutral Nations of MiddleEarth have
a contest ahead of them. The FreeHold of the Crimson
Shard shall fight on even though the odds are against
us. It has been quite fun pounding the Dark Servants
with the neutral allies.
Now I have to change gears and fight the one time
ally Hammers of Rhun. And the silent Kingdom has
spoken with troops at a town/tower of the FreeHold.
聽聽The Free are capable of stirring things up a bit
ourselves.
聽聽See ya on the battlefield.
Allanon of the Crimson Shard.
A contest! Ha!.. Your position is hopeless. Leave now whilst you still can
before our forces come sweeping down the plains and crush your nations.
Londo
South Kingdom
路路路
It would seem the Neutral Nations of MiddleEarth have
a contest ahead of them. The FreeHold of the Crimson
Shard shall fight on even though the odds are against
us. It has been quite fun pounding the Dark Servants
with the neutral allies.
Now I have to change gears and fight the one time
ally Hammers of Rhun. And the silent Kingdom has
spoken with troops at a town/tower of the FreeHold.
聽聽The Free are capable of stirring things up a bit
ourselves.
聽聽See ya on the battlefield.
Allanon of the Crimson Shard.
