KISS (Player Ratings)

[Laurence G. Tilley]

"Keep It Simple Stupid"

If Richard's eyes "glazed over" when he read the mathematics of the
proposed player ratings system, mine positively popped. Not only did the
formulas leave me baffled, but there was no clear explanation of what they
were actually trying to achieve. Since I'm not a total dufus when it comes
to maths, I think it's fair to assume that there are others out there
equally driven to snap their pencils and walk out of the Bree exam early.

I'm sorry to be negative, and I do appreciate the large amount of work that
someone's put in. BUT, I think you've drowned the baby in a bathtub of
arcane algebra. For a player ratings system to work, it needs to be
popular, and to be popular, it needs to be easy to understand.

In general terms, I can live with the principle of the Valar, Maia and
Ainur ratings - though the names are "too clever", and therefore not
functional - one has to keep looking them up to find out which is
which. Substitute sensible labels "Team Rating" "Experience Rating"
etc. The Istari rating (VPs or NewVPs) stinks. It's precisely what most
of us are trying to leave behind. I agree with Corsair 101 on this - a
Voting of Peers system would be the best way to rank individual performance
within a team (yes, of course there are issues - it would need to be
controlled by gentlemanly guidelines, such as no canvassing and no voting
pacts).

As Richard said, I have drafted a ladder system for "scoring" a Team Champs
competition. Only Clint and Richard, as far as I know, have seen
it. Clearly demarcating games "Team Chamionship Games" and "Normal Games"
would also answer the concerns of those who have said they would leave
Middle Earth rather than be rated. The ladder is ongoing, like a chess
ladder, and was written when it looked like we were going to have a Team
Championship. It rates teams by relative position only, not
individuals. Whilst it is not completely KISSable, it is reasonably
straightforward, with basic "rules", and more detailed ones to resolve
unusual situations. I _could_ tidy it up, and publish it here, but the
effort doesn't seem worth it, if, as now seems to be the case, a separate
Team Champs is no longer favoured.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

[Jason Bennett]

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

> I'm sorry to be negative, and I do appreciate the large amount of work that
> someone's put in. BUT, I think you've drowned the baby in a bathtub of
> arcane algebra. For a player ratings system to work, it needs to be
> popular, and to be popular, it needs to be easy to understand.

I think there's a difference between "easy to understand" and "calculate
it myself." I don't understand how chess rankings work exactly, but I do
know that if I beat a better player, my rating goes up. If I lose to a
better player, my rating drops slightly, much less than if I lose to a
worse player.

That's all that MEGames seems to be saying with their rating. There's a
lot of extra stuff to keep ratings from moving too quickly, but as long
as players know that beating a better team (which can quickly be
determined from the from sheet) means a better ranking, that's what matters.

jason

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

[Benjamin Shushan]

I have not said one word about this until now (tho' I have been "listening").

We should keep the "World Chamionships" (or "Team Championships" - or, even
better, _BOTH_), no matter what. The results "to date" should be included. A
"challenge system" (or "ladder system" as seen in lower-level tennis
competition) would allow for past results to be included on a basis that would
not be unfair to those yet to "enter the fray." A new national team would know
in advance that they have to start at the "bottom" of the ladder.

If the proposed 4 rankings sytstems are intended to be "all inclusive" and lead
to the _end_ of WC play, I for one may also take my ball and go home.

$.02

b

"Laurence G. Tilley" wrote:

> "Keep It Simple Stupid"
>
> If Richard's eyes "glazed over" when he read the mathematics of the
> proposed player ratings system, mine positively popped. Not only did the
> formulas leave me baffled, but there was no clear explanation of what they
> were actually trying to achieve. Since I'm not a total dufus when it comes
> to maths, I think it's fair to assume that there are others out there
> equally driven to snap their pencils and walk out of the Bree exam early.
>
> I'm sorry to be negative, and I do appreciate the large amount of work that
> someone's put in. BUT, I think you've drowned the baby in a bathtub of
> arcane algebra. For a player ratings system to work, it needs to be
> popular, and to be popular, it needs to be easy to understand.
>
> In general terms, I can live with the principle of the Valar, Maia and
> Ainur ratings - though the names are "too clever", and therefore not
> functional - one has to keep looking them up to find out which is
> which. Substitute sensible labels "Team Rating" "Experience Rating"
> etc. The Istari rating (VPs or NewVPs) stinks. It's precisely what most
> of us are trying to leave behind. I agree with Corsair 101 on this - a
> Voting of Peers system would be the best way to rank individual performance
> within a team (yes, of course there are issues - it would need to be
> controlled by gentlemanly guidelines, such as no canvassing and no voting
> pacts).
>
> As Richard said, I have drafted a ladder system for "scoring" a Team Champs
> competition. Only Clint and Richard, as far as I know, have seen
> it. Clearly demarcating games "Team Chamionship Games" and "Normal Games"
> would also answer the concerns of those who have said they would leave
> Middle Earth rather than be rated. The ladder is ongoing, like a chess
> ladder, and was written when it looked like we were going to have a Team
> Championship. It rates teams by relative position only, not
> individuals. Whilst it is not completely KISSable, it is reasonably
> straightforward, with basic "rules", and more detailed ones to resolve
> unusual situations. I _could_ tidy it up, and publish it here, but the
> effort doesn't seem worth it, if, as now seems to be the case, a separate
> Team Champs is no longer favoured.
>
> Laurence G. Tilley
>
> http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
>
>
> 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/