I would really like to see a scoring system that penalized
late-declaring neutrals, for example.Good idea!
Why?
Sometimes neutrals declare later in the game simply because
neither side has come up with a good reason for them to
declare earlier. Some never decalre at all due to both sides
being hostile, dumb, unresponsive or a combination thereof. You
want to penalise a neutral for being sensible?
Gavin
The concept behind penalizing a late declaring neutral is
designed to prevent the victory-stealing band-wagon jumpers.
I am forever at a loss as to why it's always "unfair" to
make a rule, draw a line, and stick by it. Sure, there are
odd exceptions and strange individual circumstances. But
that's life. Tough. You might have the greatest ever
reason in the world to make it to the theatre too late to
get in, but it isn't "unfair" that they don't let you in.
That's the way it is. It isn't "unfair" that I don't have
enough money for a new car when so many others seem to.
That's the way it is. If a rule was established that said
Neutrals will lose a percentage of their credited rating
increase every turn after such and such turn until they
declare allegiance, then that will be the way it is. Those
neutrals who DECIDE for themselves to not declare up to
and beyond that are wholly responsible for their choices.
Why is that unfair?
Brad
--- Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> I would really like to see a scoring system that penalized
>> late-declaring neutrals, for example.
>
> Good idea!Why?
Sometimes neutrals declare later in the game simply because
neither side has come up with a good reason for them to
declare earlier. Some never decalre at all due to both sides
being hostile, dumb, unresponsive or a combination thereof. You
want to penalise a neutral for being sensible?Gavin
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
It's not about being "unfair", it's about whether a rule suggested to correct an abuse actually works, and whether its introduction enhances or reduces game play, and the creative options of players. You could introduce a new rule into football, which says that the players are not allowed to run. It would be much safer, and much easier for the referee to see what was going on, therefore much fairer. But that doesn't mean that the introduction of that rule would make it a better game. Much the same I'm afraid with your penalty for late declaring neutrals.
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
At 18:13 12/10/2002, Brad wrote:
I am forever at a loss as to why it's always "unfair" to
make a rule, draw a line, and stick by it.
--- "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >
>I am forever at a loss as to why it's always "unfair" to
>make a rule, draw a line, and stick by it.It's not about being "unfair", it's about whether a rule suggested to
correct an abuse actually works, and whether its introduction
enhances or
reduces game play, and the creative options of players. You could
introduce a new rule into football, which says that the players are
not
allowed to run. It would be much safer, and much easier for the
referee to
see what was going on, therefore much fairer. But that doesn't mean
that
the introduction of that rule would make it a better game. Much the
same
I'm afraid with your penalty for late declaring neutrals.Laurence G. Tilley
I understand your point completely, I'm afraid.
Would it make the "game" worse? The game stays the same.
I'm not convinced that the Player Ratings will affect the
play of the "game" any moreso than those stupid VP's already
do, and they apply to every single player in the game.
How many players would this apply to? Oh, only late declaring
neutrals, of course. How many of them are there, really?
How would this affect the game?
Why should this small minority be "penalized"? I believe
you would find them unpopular with the vast majority. Why,
there's a free market economic reason right there! But
I'll go further for you....
Who is a late declaring neutral?
1) easy-win hopping johnny-come-lately's, watching and waiting
to give a simple command order to "steal" a win when it's
obvious which team will do it
2) those beleagured diplomats who have concluded that neither
team deserves their allegiance (um, er, what about the other
4 neuts? are all 5 sitting around, arms folded across their
chests, "Harrumph! You all suck!" sign hanging from their
necks...?)
3) independents playing for entirely their own agenda (using the
Duns to challenge every encounter and artifact database, the
Easterlings trying to make every one of his 3 page pop list a
major town and have 100 rank char's in each skill..just for fun,
or the Corsair trying to eliminate all of Harad, QA, AND SG...)
4) nations who decide to slowly, and methodically build their
power before risking it in messy, order-consuming warlike
operations.
One may argue these players are already penalized within the
social arena - end game's, etc. One earns a low reputation
and his overall gaming experience suffers as a result.
Why institute a new "penalty" as such as company policy?
Because the Player Ratings reward ending the game on the
winning team. They also reward for ending the game on the
winning team based on how long the game went on.
Players who only join the team for 5 turns should not earn
the same reward as he who was there the entire 25. It
doesn't matter WHAT the reason for the delay. The 4 examples
above are all, frankly, players undeserving of the same
"rewards" as the starting (or earlier declaring neutrals)
allegiance players. This is a game based on an ultimate
war of survival between good and evil...it is a time for
action. Inaction should be, if not punished, then at least
not rewarded as much, no? Isn't that the entire argument
against VP's?
It is more unfair to the vast majority of honest, decent,
upstanding gamers, to provide the same benefit to these
players than those from turn 0, than any sliding-scale
"penalty" against late declaring neutrals is unfair to
them.
"Oh, but he was really working "with" the allegiance,
he just didn't have the chance/luck to get the declare
order off" you might argue. You might even be able to prove
it. So what: the rule is the rule and you knew that going in.
Don't whine "unfair" now when you chose to play a neutral
under those conditions.
And seriously, what would these conditions be? A teeny
adjustment starting turn 6, or so? Still by turn 10 it
shouldn't be tooo much. How many undeclared neutrals are
there after these points anyway? You might even make a
similar argument that a turn 1 declared neutral should
get a bonus! Run the bonus along a straight line with a
negative slope through a specific turn where a declaration
earns 100% of the bonus, before such more, after such turn,
less.
Brad
At 18:13 12/10/2002, Brad wrote:
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
--- In mepbmlist@y..., Gavin Wynford-Jones <gavinwj@c...> wrote:
>> I would really like to see a scoring system that penalized
>> late-declaring neutrals, for example.
>
> Good idea!Why?
Sometimes neutrals declare later in the game simply because
neither side has come up with a good reason for them to
declare earlier. Some never decalre at all due to both sides
being hostile, dumb, unresponsive or a combination thereof. You
want to penalise a neutral for being sensible?Gavin
I want to penalize a neutral for jumping into a game after it is
already decided. This is one area where the individual scoring
system clearly breaks down, even if you think it's OK for alliance
players. Especially in 2950, if you sit still for 15 turns without
needing a big standing army you can develop into a huge economic power.
Hey - you can still play for fun - but you should get a ratings boost
for actually helping a team win rather than jumping on the winning
side. Somthing like the 4th age rule (declare allegiance by turn 12
or not at all) seems pretty reasonable to me.
cheers,
Marc