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.
I agree this is an issue. However, I think the proposed systems do nothing to eliminate that issue. A new player starts at 1500, just like someone that has played a dozen games against very competent opponents, and come out 6 wins and 6 losses.
There was a rating that demonstrates "how many turns and the skill of teammates". While this "experience" score would be more useful than the other ratings, it demonstrates very little of what the person actually learned in those games.
Even a player voting scheme is not very useful. There is a grudge game I just started that I have 0 chance of getting a vote as "best player", even though I'm a good player with 8 years of experience. There are teammates in this game that ar far better and far more aggressive than I am.
In short, a quick
"Games Started, Completed, won, lost, win %"
should be more than sufficient to avoid your dreaded situation of a team full of vets wiping out a team full of newbies in 10 turns.
This trumps the hypothetical-bad-stuff by quite a bit as far as I'm
concerned.
Not me. Hypothetical-bad-stuff isn't all that hypothetical. I've played a lot of computer games over the net, and some that have "player ranking" systems. A few players that choose and play games with "improving my score" on their mind, can really screw it up for those that are just showing up to have fun. It doesn't take more than a few people that take neutrals, then choose sides based on how to get the game over with quickly so they can get their points and move on to the next game, to really screw it up for the 22-23 people that end up in a game with those people.
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.
"properly designed" is the key flaw. In this team oriented game, it is (I beleive) impossible to properly design a ranking system. The VPs are a joke, rewarding bad play. The current proposed ranking system rewards playing lots of games at a time, or lots of short games against newbies.
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.
Marc, look at some proposed orders you recently sent me. If I do what you suggest, it is best for the team but my nation is personally screwed. If I do what is best for my nation, I don't help the team nearly as much. More often than not, VPs reflect poor team play instead of good team play.
They suck, and should not be used. Nor should any system that ranks someone that is 7 of 10 the same as someone that is 4 of 4.
Darrell Shimel
···
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
