Voting for Game MVP

[BBrunet]

As an opponent of votes in this game, I am surprised at myself for coming up with an
idea that I think may actually allow a voting process to work! Besides, Clint asked for
ideas, and I rreeaallyy want this one particular order to go through, so I'm being a good
little community member (I've highlighted it on my order sheet...

Each turn, every allied player sends in his votes for 1-2-3 for the Team MVP for the
PREVIOUS turn, with his NEW turn. Players cannot vote for themselves. Individual
votes are kept confidential, only totals are published.

3 pts for each 1st place vote, 2 - 2nd, etc. Results are tallied, quite easily, and posted
on the Front Sheet (Previous Turn and Ongoing Total).

These votes can also be maintained as a Per Turn rating for the individual player.

What does this accomplish?

1-Regardless of who starts the game, who ends the game, who plays Noldo for the first
20 turns, and then who plays Noldo for the next 20 turns, the ongoing tally would accurately
reflect what the TEAM of PLAYERS thought that particular NATION had put into the game.
The New Noldo may never recieve another vote, so while Noldo may place high out of the
nations, the two Noldo Players would have drastically different Per Turn ratings
     - (may this require a Winning Nation AND a Winning Player?)

2-Neutrals don't get voted for until they have issued the order. This may not be "fair" for
a neutral that is effectively a member of an allegiance but can't get the order out, so maybe
allow for allegiance players to vote for neutrals? (don't allow neutrals votes themselves...?)
This gets neutrals off the fence earlier maybe?

3-A Woodman who's getting hammered by excellent DS play can recieve votes for his
knowledge sharing and team organizing abilities - Recognition. Similarly, different front line
nations may rack up votes during different phases of the game.

4-Why not have a game MVP on the losing side? Happens in sports where it's meritted....

As a previous opponent of the concept of players voting for their MVP, I would actually enjoy
playing a game where this kind of ongoing process took place. I would also like to see some
sort of player rating system developed. The simpler the better, and the more likely.

Opinions?

Brad Brunet

···

__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

[Laurence_G_Tilley]

I'm sorry that the above idea went uncommented upon. I did keep it,
but I'm afraid I don't really like it. It seems to me that it would need
major changes to the turnsheet, probably the program, and the GMs
would have to process more data, and charge more money. So I think
a per turn rating system is a non- starter. An end game one is a
different thing entirely.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

BBrunet <ditletang@canada.com> wrote

Each turn, every allied player sends in his votes for 1-2-3 for the Team MVP
for the
PREVIOUS turn, with his NEW turn. Players cannot vote for themselves.
Individual
votes are kept confidential, only totals are published.

These votes can also be maintained as a Per Turn rating for the individual
player.

[MPinsono]

I think that a rating system could be interesting; however, we have to
have some guidance about what Harlequin can actually do in terms of
changes to the code.

The individual VCs as currently defined do not appear to have any
defenders, so one idea would be to try and fix them as follows:

1. Define a set of VCs that correspond to useful achievements for
particular nations. e.g. the Northern Gondor player in 2950 gets 100
for holding Osgilath until turn 10; the 2950 Woodmen get 100 if the
free capture Dol Guldur before turn 15, etc. These can address the
claim that the current scoring system doesn't reflect contributions to
the success of a team. We'll need guidance as to what Harly can track
and what they can't; it would be nice to add counters for battles won,
etc. but it may not be feasible to do so. Neutrals would have two
sets of individual VCs (one per alliance) and could only meet them if
they declared before, say, turn 12.

2. It is clear that all nations are not equal in ME, so you need a
way to handicap the fortunate nations. This could have the (valuable)
side consequence of encouraging better players to choose more
difficult nations. The easiest way to do this is to use the existing
*base* scoring system, excluding the most volatile and abuse-prone
category of gold reserves. This will require some archival data.
Use this to make up a ranked list of scores for nations that survived
until the final turn.

You will have a set of initial scores from 300-1500. Your score is
then adjusted relative to the historical record for that nation
(details to be worked out if the data is there and the concept is
acceptable.) For instance, if a score of 600 for the Woodmen puts
them at the midpoint of all Woodmen players, their "adjusted" score is
900; if a score of 1100 for a Noldo player puts them at the midpoint
of all Noldo players then their adjusted score would also be 900.
Eliminated nations are not included in the totals or awarded points
one way or another.

3. You get a bonus if your team wins.

4. A players score would then be reported as an average and a
win/loss/drop record.

5. Future improvements could include adjusting point totals depending
on the overall quality of the opposing team.

6. You could give a free setup, etc. to the three nations with the
highest adjusted scores as defined above.

cheers,

Marc

[Harlequin_Games1]

1. Define a set of VCs that correspond to useful achievements for
particular nations. e.g. the Northern Gondor player in 2950 gets 100
for holding Osgilath until turn 10; the 2950 Woodmen get 100 if the
free capture Dol Guldur before turn 15, etc. These can address the
claim that the current scoring system doesn't reflect contributions to
the success of a team. We'll need guidance as to what Harly can track
and what they can't; it would be nice to add counters for battles won,
etc. but it may not be feasible to do so. Neutrals would have two
sets of individual VCs (one per alliance) and could only meet them if
they declared before, say, turn 12.

Can't really do any of this. Could do but my it would take a lot of work
each turn...

2. It is clear that all nations are not equal in ME, so you need a
way to handicap the fortunate nations. This could have the (valuable)
side consequence of encouraging better players to choose more
difficult nations. The easiest way to do this is to use the existing
*base* scoring system, excluding the most volatile and abuse-prone
category of gold reserves. This will require some archival data.
Use this to make up a ranked list of scores for nations that survived
until the final turn.

*** Playing with and doing well with smaller nations is something players
like as well!

You will have a set of initial scores from 300-1500. Your score is
then adjusted relative to the historical record for that nation
(details to be worked out if the data is there and the concept is
acceptable.) For instance, if a score of 600 for the Woodmen puts
them at the midpoint of all Woodmen players, their "adjusted" score is
900; if a score of 1100 for a Noldo player puts them at the midpoint
of all Noldo players then their adjusted score would also be 900.
Eliminated nations are not included in the totals or awarded points
one way or another.

*** This was suggested before - a sort of normalised score for players. Ie
comparitive to the scores of other Woodie nations. This would be my
preference.

···

3. You get a bonus if your team wins.

4. A players score would then be reported as an average and a
win/loss/drop record.

5. Future improvements could include adjusting point totals depending
on the overall quality of the opposing team.

6. You could give a free setup, etc. to the three nations with the
highest adjusted scores as defined above.

cheers,

Marc

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[MPinsono]

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@M...> wrote:

> 1. Define a set of VCs that correspond to useful achievements for
> particular nations. e.g. the Northern Gondor player in 2950 gets

100

> for holding Osgilath until turn 10; the 2950 Woodmen get 100 if

the

> free capture Dol Guldur before turn 15, etc. These can address

the

> claim that the current scoring system doesn't reflect

contributions to

> the success of a team. We'll need guidance as to what Harly can

track

> and what they can't; it would be nice to add counters for battles

won,

> etc. but it may not be feasible to do so. Neutrals would have

two

> sets of individual VCs (one per alliance) and could only meet them

if

> they declared before, say, turn 12.

Can't really do any of this. Could do but my it would take a lot of

work

each turn...

That's why I'd focus on things like capturing Osgilath before turn 10
or Dol Guldur before turn 15; you could even rely on player reports
when they have either achieved one of their VCs or denied one to their
opponents.

I can't see any other objective way to deal with the intangibles that
seem to be so important to the UK folks.

> 2. It is clear that all nations are not equal in ME, so you need

a

> way to handicap the fortunate nations. This could have the

(valuable)

> side consequence of encouraging better players to choose more
> difficult nations. The easiest way to do this is to use the

existing

> *base* scoring system, excluding the most volatile and abuse-prone
> category of gold reserves. This will require some archival data.
> Use this to make up a ranked list of scores for nations that

survived

> until the final turn.
>
*** Playing with and doing well with smaller nations is something

players

like as well!
> You will have a set of initial scores from 300-1500. Your score

is

> then adjusted relative to the historical record for that nation
> (details to be worked out if the data is there and the concept is
> acceptable.) For instance, if a score of 600 for the Woodmen puts
> them at the midpoint of all Woodmen players, their "adjusted"

score is

> 900; if a score of 1100 for a Noldo player puts them at the

midpoint

> of all Noldo players then their adjusted score would also be 900.
> Eliminated nations are not included in the totals or awarded

points

> one way or another.
*** This was suggested before - a sort of normalised score for

players. Ie

comparitive to the scores of other Woodie nations. This would be my
preference.

Suggested by me on the last go around, I think

cheers,

Marc

> 3. You get a bonus if your team wins.
>
> 4. A players score would then be reported as an average and a
> win/loss/drop record.
>
> 5. Future improvements could include adjusting point totals

depending

> on the overall quality of the opposing team.
>
> 6. You could give a free setup, etc. to the three nations with

the

> highest adjusted scores as defined above.
>
> cheers,
>
> Marc
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

···

>
>