What is good play ?

mepbmlist
#1

>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.

Or we could agree how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The
whole core of the issue is the fact that as in any game or sport,

people's

opinion as to what constitutes good play, will vary, sometimes
wildly. That's why any attempt to objectively allocate any form of points
or score will always appear destructive to some

Well, there is always the "score on the board at the end of the game" thing that seems to settle most games and sports.

Darrell Shimel's Ultra simplified ranking system (if we must have one, then it is the best I can come up with).

Games: Started, Completed, Won, Lost, Winning % (Won/Started)

Rewards those that win a lot, punishes those that lose or drop, no reward (blackmail) just for spending a lot of money.

···

At 10:02 10/10/2002, kba@wecodsb.dk wrote:

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

#2

corsairs game 101 wrote:

Darrell Shimel's Ultra simplified ranking system (if we must have one, then it is the best I can come up with).

Games: Started, Completed, Won, Lost, Winning % (Won/Started)

Rewards those that win a lot, punishes those that lose or drop, no reward (blackmail) just for spending a lot of money.

That system rewards stacking the deck, though. If I make sure to always sign up with three of my closest friends in key positions, I'll do a lot better than someone who ends up in a game with a bunch of droppers and losers.

Heck, I've won two games simply because the other side couldn't get it's (junk) together. I'd hate to think what my rating might be if I were on those teams instead.

    jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!

#3

Hi you guys

I did not follow all of this rating discussion.

Could somebody in short words tell me why all (or some) of you are so
mad about been rated?

Hey play the game, enjoy and you will know who you like to play with and
which persons you do not like to play with.

In my opinon ratings do not make any person play better. They make
persons play to get the best rating there is.
Maybe there are better ratings which correspondent with the goals of Me
(whichever they might be), but I do not think that they will help to
make game more enjoyable.

Und noch was f�r die deutschen Spieler bei Harlequin:
Schaut euch mal die Seite Hercardan.de an. Ist vom Deutschen ME
Anbieter, k�nnt ja mal nen Blick riskieren.

Stefan

Jason Bennett schrieb:

···

corsairs game 101 wrote:

> Darrell Shimel's Ultra simplified ranking system (if we must have one, then
> it is the best I can come up with).
>
> Games: Started, Completed, Won, Lost, Winning % (Won/Started)
>
> Rewards those that win a lot, punishes those that lose or drop, no reward
> (blackmail) just for spending a lot of money.

That system rewards stacking the deck, though. If I make sure to always
sign up with three of my closest friends in key positions, I'll do a lot
better than someone who ends up in a game with a bunch of droppers and
losers.

Heck, I've won two games simply because the other side couldn't get it's
(junk) together. I'd hate to think what my rating might be if I were on
those teams instead.

                jason

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!

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/

#4

Hello Stefan please don't advertise to the German speaking players here. I will contact you off list.

Clint

···

At 20:25 10/10/02, you wrote:

Hi you guys

I did not follow all of this rating discussion.

Could somebody in short words tell me why all (or some) of you are so
mad about been rated?

Hey play the game, enjoy and you will know who you like to play with and
which persons you do not like to play with.

In my opinon ratings do not make any person play better. They make
persons play to get the best rating there is.
Maybe there are better ratings which correspondent with the goals of Me
(whichever they might be), but I do not think that they will help to
make game more enjoyable.

Und noch was für die deutschen Spieler bei Harlequin:
Schaut euch mal die Seite Hercardan.de an. Ist vom Deutschen ME
Anbieter, könnt ja mal nen Blick riskieren.

Stefan

Jason Bennett schrieb:
>
> corsairs game 101 wrote:
>
> > Darrell Shimel's Ultra simplified ranking system (if we must have one, then
> > it is the best I can come up with).
> >
> > Games: Started, Completed, Won, Lost, Winning % (Won/Started)
> >
> > Rewards those that win a lot, punishes those that lose or drop, no reward
> > (blackmail) just for spending a lot of money.
>
> That system rewards stacking the deck, though. If I make sure to always
> sign up with three of my closest friends in key positions, I'll do a lot
> better than someone who ends up in a game with a bunch of droppers and
> losers.
>
> Heck, I've won two games simply because the other side couldn't get it's
> (junk) together. I'd hate to think what my rating might be if I were on
> those teams instead.
>
> jason
>
> --
> Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
> E pur si muove!
>
> 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/

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/

****************************************************************
                    Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************

#5

Gruessen Stefan
Sie haben vorher versprochen das Sie wurde Deutches spieler suchen nicht. Bitte nutzen nicht unser list als verbung fur anderer mittle erde firma

Clint

···

Und noch was für die deutschen Spieler bei Harlequin:
Schaut euch mal die Seite Hercardan.de an. Ist vom Deutschen ME
Anbieter, könnt ja mal nen Blick riskieren.

Stefan

#6

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

Hello Stefan please don't advertise to the German speaking players

here. I

will contact you off list.

Clint
>Hi you guys
>
>I did not follow all of this rating discussion.
>
>Could somebody in short words tell me why all (or some) of you are

so

>mad about been rated?

I have yet to see a response from the anti-ratings folks to the
reason why I'd like to see even a primitive system:

I pluck down $150 US for a reasonably complete game.

Right now I have no way of knowing whether a given random-draw game is
remotely balanced in terms of the skill level of the players on the
two teams. An all-vet team vs. an all-newbie team is a recipe for a
quick and boring game. This is unfortunately very common; look at the
number of 10-turn games that get reported.

Even a counter of wins/losses/games played would give Harly a clue
that they needed to recruit some experienced players to one side or
the other to make for an interesting contest.

This trumps the hypothetical-bad-stuff by quite a bit as far as I'm
concerned.

It also can add some fun to the game - ratings systems are pretty
common in a lot of different games, and if they are properly designed
they can reward positive traits such as completing games or doing
unusually well in difficult positions. I would really like to see a
scoring system that penalized late-declaring neutrals, for example.

For reasons that, quite frankly, escape me, a lot of folks equate high
individual scores with selfish or crappy play. At least in 2950 (my
primary game) this simply isn't true. Since everyone starts with 5-7
pop centers, your economy has more to do with camp placement than your
initial choice of nation. And all of the VCs untimately flow from
your economy and ability to name characters, build armies, get gold,
and improve your pop centers. In all of my 2950 games I only have
ever seen 2 nations (in one game) that clearly just played for points
in the old GWC system.

Could be different in 1650, I guess.

Marc

···

At 20:25 10/10/02, you wrote:

#7

Good idea!

Brad

···

--- marc_pinsonneault <pinsonneault.1@osu.edu> wrote:

I would really like to see a scoring system that penalized
late-declaring neutrals, for example.

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca