Re: [mepbmlist] Discussion on Player Ratings [Archive]

View Full Version : Re: [mepbmlist] Discussion on Player Ratings

Gavinwj

2nd February 2008, 11:54 AM

To save yourself work, Clint, may I suggest that you outsource the
maintenance of whatever system is eventually adopted. I'm sure that amongst
all these players there's more than one willing to take it on for free...

It's called putting your money where your mouth is.

Not in jest,

Gavin

Middle Earth PBM Games

2nd February 2008, 11:54 AM

That would not be a problem to out-source it.

Clint

> To save yourself work, Clint, may I suggest that you outsource the
> maintenance of whatever system is eventually adopted. I'm sure that
amongst
> all these players there's more than one willing to take it on for free...
>
> It's called putting your money where your mouth is.
>
> Not in jest,
>
> Gavin
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

Player

2nd February 2008, 11:54 AM

--- Middle Earth PBM Games <me@...> wrote:

> Assuming we use a voting scheme - what should be voted on?
> (And what points should be added on for being on the winning
> team etc).
>
> Adding these onto the VPs for the nation concerned would be one
> method:
>
> 1-VPs
> 2-VPs with pts from VCs
> 3-VPs with pts from Voting
>
> would then be the 3 items relayed to players and kept as a record.
>
> Then a comparitive scale with the norm for that nation would give
> you an overall rating to be added to your score.
>
> Divide that score by the number of games taken part in (yes/no?)
> to give you your rating for that nation?

I'm having trouble following this.

Ex.

1-SG with 987 vps
2-SG with 987 + VC's (how many for those anyway...??)
3-SG with 987 + VC's + Vote Score

Which one gets compared to the norm?
Then we ADD (subtract?) even more from that untouched total above?
(total 3=vp+vc+vote..??).

Then we average MY scores for SG or MY scores for ALL my finished
games? Every player has 25 rankings, one per nation...?

Player

2nd February 2008, 11:54 AM

A number of us have made public offers on numerous occasions to
do much of what has been proposed. Offers of free labour, I'm
sure, are saved in some special folder, and I fully expect to
be called upon some day to do just as you recommend.

I believe some others that I myself recall would echo my
sentiments.

regards,

bb

--- Gavinwj <gavinwj@...> wrote:

<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
To save yourself work, Clint, may I suggest that you outsource the 
maintenance of whatever system is eventually adopted. I'm sure that
amongst 
all these players there's more than one willing to take it on for
free... 
 
It's called putting your money where your mouth is. 
 
Not in jest, 
 
Gavin 
 
</tt>

 



<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center>Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor</td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0
cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center>ADVERTISEMENT <a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=213858.1650662.3186813.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705334760:HM/A=763352/R=0/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=5085"
target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.gif"
alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=213858.1650662.3186813.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705334760:HM/A=763352/rand=717105236"></td></tr>
</table>



 
<tt>
Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone 
To Unsubscribe: <a
href="http://www.yahoogroups.com">http://www.yahoogroups.com</a> 
Website: <a
href="http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com">http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com</a> 
</tt>
 

 
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of
Service</a>.</tt>


</body></html>

Middle Earth PBM Games

2nd February 2008, 11:54 AM

>
> 1-SG with 987 vps
> 2-SG with 987 + VC's (how many for those anyway...??)
> 3-SG with 987 + VC's + Vote Score
>
> Which one gets compared to the norm?
> Then we ADD (subtract?) even more from that untouched total above?
> (total 3=vp+vc+vote..??).
>
> Then we average MY scores for SG or MY scores for ALL my finished
> games? Every player has 25 rankings, one per nation...?

Do be discussed and agreed upon.

Clint

Aaruman

2nd February 2008, 11:54 AM

After some thought, I don't really know about the "trash the current VPs" thing. The
current VPs allow someone to flaunt their prowess at winning the most points very
well. Yes, some of these players will forsake their allies in order to garner more
victory points for the end game, but no matter what you do and what kind of rating
system is developed, this will almost certainly still apply in some form or another.
Specifically as a measure of how well a person is able to build their position into
the strongest one, the current system works fine, and could be used to add to an
overall player rating system by simply adding how many 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place finishes
someone has had. (3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, and 1 for 3rd or whatever)

However, the rating system I'd like to see would tell me 2 things about a player in
addition to the above. What is the player's commitment and how good an ally will they
likely be? But a single rating number isn't going to be very helpful in either regard.
That's why I think a rating would be more useful if it were split into 3 separate
ratings.

1. 1st thru 3rd place finishes (as above, +3, +2, or +1 points).

2. How many total games have they started in, and how many games have they dropped
that were subsequently assigned to a standby player? (Say before turn 10, or 15, or
whatever the current limit is for standby player assignments.)

3. How did the players previous allies feel about his teamwork? (This would be the
voting aspect, though rather than rank who was best, give ALL allies (even the ones
who are out) a teamwork rating of 0-100. (0 being the equivalent of an enemy, and 100
being "couldn't possibly have won without them".) This would be averaged for all votes
in that game, and each game's average would be averaged with the next. (Whether you
allow people no longer in the game a vote for this second one is questionable, but
might provide some additional insight.)

So, a multi-category rating might look like:

14-17(0)-86
where...

14 = 1st-3rd place finish rating
17 = Total games started
0 = Games dropped and filled by standby
86 = Percentage teamwork rating average

While this is certainly a little more complex, (though not very much more work if a
voting system is established anyway), I think a rating system that differentiates
between these points would be incredibly useful. If you don't care how many times
someone finished 1st, but would rather know how good a teammate someone might be, you
can choose to look only at the teamwork rating and/or the game finishes. If you saw
someone with a 24-20(12)-34, you'd have a much better idea what you were in for than a
simple, one number rating system.

As others have offered, I would also be willing to help with such a system. I'd be
willing to compile the data, (assuming it were available), and I could make and host a
website for it as well, (including the feedback forms, etc.), if MeGames didn't have
the resources for it. I'd do this because I honestly don't think it would require too
much work to do, once the initial data compiling were done. (The biggest workload
would be trying to get everyone to vote once the game was over and they'd lost
interest.)

So, that's my proposal, as late in the game as it is. Feel free to pick it apart and
let me know what you think wouldn't work or what would be an improvement.

Mike Mulka

Player

2nd February 2008, 11:54 AM

--- Aaruman <aaruman@...> wrote:
> Yes, some of these players will forsake their allies in order to
> garner more victory points for the end game, but no matter what you
> do and what kind of rating system is developed, this will almost
> certainly still apply in some form or another.
> Specifically as a measure of how well a person is able to build their
> position into the strongest one, the current system works fine

Mike,

are you referring to 1000 where all (but the kingdoms) start off
with the same hope/choice of score? or 1650/2950 where the
INTRINSIC differences between nations refute the statements above?

The entire cause for the work that was done on alternative scoring
systems last winter/spring was motivated by the desire to find a
way to level the field between the Noldo and the Woodmen. Either
eliminating the VPs as they are, Or Normalizing them, are the only
ways to do this.

Regards,

Brad

Gavinwj

2nd February 2008, 11:54 AM

Player wrote:

> --- Gavinwj <gavinwj@...> wrote:
>
> <HR>
> <html><body>
> <tt>
> To save yourself work, Clint, may I suggest that you outsource the 
> maintenance of whatever system is eventually adopted. I'm sure that
> amongst 
> all these players there's more than one willing to take it on for
> free... 
> 

I certainly didn't insert all that HTML ruggish...!

Gavin

Player

2nd February 2008, 11:54 AM

--- Aaruman <aaruman@...> wrote:

[snip]
> Feel free to pick it apart
[snip]

Have you seen Bobbin's Fictional Player Roster on his site?
The idea being the list of names, and whatever/however many
columns of information as required/desired, sorted by the
primary concern. In his case, it's average votes per game.

1-Again, eliminate the number of times Placing. While that
has meaning in games where 20 or so nations start out with a
reasonably equal chance of being equal.. (??).. it's just dumb
in 1650/2950. The long term standings by nation are on Bobbin's
site also. Meaningless as far as individual performance is
concerned.

2-Express Started and Dropped as a percentage of games that have
been played to a technically defined point of completion. Easier
on the eyes!

Regards,

Brad B

ps - it appears I've lied and not gone away. oh well, guess that's
why I play neutrals, eh? hehehehe

Aaruman

2nd February 2008, 11:54 AM

>---Player <mailto:pbmnoot@...> wrote:
>--- Aaruman <aaruman@...> wrote:
>> Yes, some of these players will forsake their allies in order to
>> garner more victory points for the end game, but no matter what you
>> do and what kind of rating system is developed, this will almost
>> certainly still apply in some form or another.
>> Specifically as a measure of how well a person is able to build their
>> position into the strongest one, the current system works fine
>
>are you referring to 1000 where all (but the kingdoms) start off
>with the same hope/choice of score? or 1650/2950 where the
>INTRINSIC differences between nations refute the statements above?
>
>The entire cause for the work that was done on alternative scoring
>systems last winter/spring was motivated by the desire to find a
>way to level the field between the Noldo and the Woodmen. Either
>eliminating the VPs as they are, Or Normalizing them, are the only
>ways to do this.
>
>Regards,
>Brad

Brad,
My apologies. I have pretty much given up on 1650 or 2950 for the very reason you
mention, (the inequities between positions). I only play 4th Age anymore, and wasn't
really referring to the 1650/2950 aspect of VPs.
Certainly I agree that some sort of VP leveling should be considered for the
1650/2950 scenarios. What I should have said is that I don't believe that the VP
system should be scrapped altogether, but rather folded into a Player Rating system,
as one aspect of a multi-category system, (assuming one is developed). This could be a
levelized one (for 1650/2950), or a standard one (for 4th Age, which works pretty well
overall).

(As an aside...For those who think the NK/SK have too big an advantage, they usually
get hammered pretty hard, so the advantage isn't quite a big as you might think.)

Mike Mulka

Aaruman

2nd February 2008, 11:54 AM

>---Player [mailto:pbmnoot@...] wrote:
>1-Again, eliminate the number of times Placing. While that
>has meaning in games where 20 or so nations start out with a
>reasonably equal chance of being equal.. (??).. it's just dumb
>in 1650/2950. The long term standings by nation are on Bobbin's
>site also. Meaningless as far as individual performance is
>concerned.

Adjust to use whatever levelized VP system is developed for 1650/2950. It still has
some value, especially in a multi-category system.

>2-Express Started and Dropped as a percentage of games that have
>been played to a technically defined point of completion. Easier
>on the eyes!

But if someone played 1 game only, you wouldn't have any idea how experienced a player
they were. a 100% might be easier on the eyes, but a 1(0) or 18(0) gives you more info
about the player.

Mike

Player

2nd February 2008, 11:54 AM

--- Aaruman <aaruman@...> wrote:
> But if someone played 1 game only, you wouldn't have any idea how
> experienced a player they were. a 100% might be easier on the eyes,
> but a 1(0) or 18(0) gives you more info about the player.

> Mike

TOUCHÉ