Player
2nd February 2008, 01:06 PM
--- ulfang_the_easterling <ulfang_the_easterling@...> wrote:
> The DS side convinced me to join them. So I declared for the DS and
> attacked the FP. But they all joined together and in fact, lived
> near each other. So after I knocked out one FP player, attacking
> another FP and the game was mostly in mop-up mode, they decided they
> wanted the GWCs amoung themselves.
I've heard lots of this type of story, but always in reference
to "the past". Does it still happen? The non-North American
players claim that, because they never had GWC's, they play more
of a team oriented game. I've never seen anything even remotely
similar in my various games as a neutral, including 130 where
my Rhudaur ended up in 1st place for a considerable portion of
the end game (eclipsed by my Witch King ally at the end, mind
you). In fact, in that game, many of my DS allies were offering
to HELP me meet my VC's, just for the novelty of Rhudaur winning
as a DS!
The Valar and Maiar ratings (whatever they may legally end up
being called... ;) take the team Win and total points on the
team (not VP's) into account. These are both quite interesting
ratings that I like. The company could combine them into one
master score, but keeping them seperate helps guage different
aspects of the player.
The Istari rating is based solely and completely on VP's. Based
on your anecdote, the fact that I still keep meeting VP players
(who always claim THEY don't care about VP's...but why do they keep
bringing them up?), and the argument the anonymous corsairs101
made regarding joining games to only play powerful nations and/or
powerful neutrals in order to boost this rating up, I don't see
a good reason to keep it. Harlequin didn't use GWC's before, I
don't see why they should start now (MEGames has said they're
interested in bringing them back, I don't recall their explanation)
I certainly don't see how a controversial "rating" as such would
augment the game. I argue that it "shouldn't" affect players
motivation, but it's a matter of opinion - why bother if there's
a chance it would?
Will some players decide "Okay, I'll play Free this time, but only
as SG or Noldo..." in order to ensure they're not stuck in a
situation where this rating will suffer? Sure. Will others play
southern neutrals exclusively to gamble on huge scores on the
winning side (they declare when the games heavily tilted...)?
Yes, I can accept that some (minority) of players would do that.
As a result, the Istari rating would be tainted. If I went on a run
of spectacular LUCK and ended up on the top of that list for a spell,
1) I would be embarassed and 2) other's would now question my motives
and team ethic...because the whole concept of "individual" score
in a highly technical "team" game is oxymoronic. Would players like
myself do the opposite, and go around sacrificing their nations
in order to avoid the smell of appearing near the top of the Istari?
(I argue sacrifice is how a team is supposed to work, but the fact
remains that when your team wins, one of you has to come in first,
my horrifying experience as a near 1st place DS Rhudaur brought that
point home for me.) Who knows. Why bother with the debate?
I say: either use VP's against the average for the nation being
played (as myself and Marc P have proposed over the past year or
more) or don't use them at all. If the game was WWII, how often
would Poland surpass the US? But I'd like to give it a shot if
I was stacked up against all the Polands in previous games.
Regards,
Brad Brunet
> The DS side convinced me to join them. So I declared for the DS and
> attacked the FP. But they all joined together and in fact, lived
> near each other. So after I knocked out one FP player, attacking
> another FP and the game was mostly in mop-up mode, they decided they
> wanted the GWCs amoung themselves.
I've heard lots of this type of story, but always in reference
to "the past". Does it still happen? The non-North American
players claim that, because they never had GWC's, they play more
of a team oriented game. I've never seen anything even remotely
similar in my various games as a neutral, including 130 where
my Rhudaur ended up in 1st place for a considerable portion of
the end game (eclipsed by my Witch King ally at the end, mind
you). In fact, in that game, many of my DS allies were offering
to HELP me meet my VC's, just for the novelty of Rhudaur winning
as a DS!
The Valar and Maiar ratings (whatever they may legally end up
being called... ;) take the team Win and total points on the
team (not VP's) into account. These are both quite interesting
ratings that I like. The company could combine them into one
master score, but keeping them seperate helps guage different
aspects of the player.
The Istari rating is based solely and completely on VP's. Based
on your anecdote, the fact that I still keep meeting VP players
(who always claim THEY don't care about VP's...but why do they keep
bringing them up?), and the argument the anonymous corsairs101
made regarding joining games to only play powerful nations and/or
powerful neutrals in order to boost this rating up, I don't see
a good reason to keep it. Harlequin didn't use GWC's before, I
don't see why they should start now (MEGames has said they're
interested in bringing them back, I don't recall their explanation)
I certainly don't see how a controversial "rating" as such would
augment the game. I argue that it "shouldn't" affect players
motivation, but it's a matter of opinion - why bother if there's
a chance it would?
Will some players decide "Okay, I'll play Free this time, but only
as SG or Noldo..." in order to ensure they're not stuck in a
situation where this rating will suffer? Sure. Will others play
southern neutrals exclusively to gamble on huge scores on the
winning side (they declare when the games heavily tilted...)?
Yes, I can accept that some (minority) of players would do that.
As a result, the Istari rating would be tainted. If I went on a run
of spectacular LUCK and ended up on the top of that list for a spell,
1) I would be embarassed and 2) other's would now question my motives
and team ethic...because the whole concept of "individual" score
in a highly technical "team" game is oxymoronic. Would players like
myself do the opposite, and go around sacrificing their nations
in order to avoid the smell of appearing near the top of the Istari?
(I argue sacrifice is how a team is supposed to work, but the fact
remains that when your team wins, one of you has to come in first,
my horrifying experience as a near 1st place DS Rhudaur brought that
point home for me.) Who knows. Why bother with the debate?
I say: either use VP's against the average for the nation being
played (as myself and Marc P have proposed over the past year or
more) or don't use them at all. If the game was WWII, how often
would Poland surpass the US? But I'd like to give it a shot if
I was stacked up against all the Polands in previous games.
Regards,
Brad Brunet