Hi,
I think the key issue in creating a Rating system based on good play is
first making a uniqe definition of "Good play", which can be agreed upon.
Right now the discussion is circling around, because everyone has there
own definition of good play and how it can be measured.
A CL player making a lot of kills is not necessarily a good player. He could be lucky (always succeeding when
assassinating with his new 40 agents) or he could be a "String-puppet"
just sending his agents where another or a group of dominant allied team
members wants him to send his agents.
An Eot player having build up his position to a powerful nation with lots
of Cities and MT's and powerful characters is not necessarily a good player. He could have played his own solo game, where
he disbanded most of his initial HC and made 4 new emis, so that he could
pursue his idea of building up, when infact he has given his teammates the
finger and probably is the worst teamplayer in Middle Earth.
Again the question remains, what is good play ?
Kim Andersen
WecoDsb IT Support
Bredgade 31
1260 Kbh
Tlf afdeling: 33 70 89 99
Tlf Direkte: 33 70 89 74
E-mail: kba@wecodsb.dk
"Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
09-10-2002 23:42
Please respond to mepbmlist
···
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] 5th Rating part II
At 23:23 09/10/2002, you wrote:
The reverse is also true. If your Cardolan is on the losing side, who
has done you the most damage? CL with his agents, Dog lord with his
cavalry, WK by his stubborn resistance, or the QAv navy raiding your
coastal pops?
The more I think about it though, the more problematic the concept
becomes. I imagine that in such a system ClL would always get most of the
votes from a defeated FP team, because he's the one they've SEEN doing the
most damage to them. In actuality though, it might be the faithful
scouting of DrL and QAv, or the inspired intelligence gathering of BlS
working faithfully behind the scenes, which have been the strongest
element. So despite previously having advocated an "opposition vote", I
no
longer think it is a good idea - it would NOT get us any nearer to a fair
assessment of good play.
I do think however that the fear some have of own side voting becoming
"just a popularity contest" is paranoia. It's not like an American
election (allegedly), few of us know what the others look like, or care
who
has the most sweaty forehead in the TV debate. Who are you going to vote
for when you're asked for "player who made the best contribution?" I'd
try
to make an objective assessment, and I'm inclined to think that the great
majority of ME players are decent chaps who value fairness, and who would
do the same.
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
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/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]