Player Ratings/New GWC's

[Player]

--- Urzahil <Urzahil@...> wrote:
> OK... I must have missed something here. Has MeGames announced
> somewhere
> else that they are bringing back GWCs and pegging them to the new
> ratings? If not, how do new ratings have anything whatsoever to do
> with
> the prophesied problems?

Not tied into the Player Ratings, no, but I've seen Clint
email a few times mentioning how they'll be bringing GWC's
back in some form or another.

Brad

[marc_pinsonneault]

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Player <pbmnoot@y...> wrote:
>
> --- Urzahil <Urzahil@o...> wrote:
> > OK... I must have missed something here. Has MeGames announced
> > somewhere
> > else that they are bringing back GWCs and pegging them to the new
> > ratings? If not, how do new ratings have anything whatsoever to do
> > with
> > the prophesied problems?
>
> Not tied into the Player Ratings, no, but I've seen Clint
> email a few times mentioning how they'll be bringing GWC's
> back in some form or another.
>
> Brad

I think we all want this hobby to be more successful, and if people
are motivated to play more/get drawn in because of them they could be
an effective marketing tool.

For that reason alone, I like the idea of having them.
If (as I suspect) Harly doesn't have complete stats on finished games,
it could take awhile to build up a database of them. In that case,
you could start with something like the Istari individual system (real
VCs only please, not the cheesy individual VCs that no one likes.)
Once there are 25 finishes for a nation in a given scenario, switch to
ratings relative to the historical record for that nation.

If I can get nations VCs for some games, I could put these into a
spreadsheet and give some examples of what the scoring would look
like. Given my druthers I'd omit the gold score (the most prone to
abuse and the one that is the least tied to the actual strength of the
nation) and use only characters, armies, economy. I'd prefer real
data to guesses/anecdotes.

Note that this could very well motivate people to do well in
traditionally second-tier nations, as it would then be much harder to
improve your ratings with the Noldo than it would be to do so with the
Woodmen. Folks would still want to have fun with the powerful
positions, of course, but not for the purpose of improving their
standings. Given the dialog, its worth noting that a proper rating
system can do a lot to encourage good playing habits.

cheers,

Marc

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

Have you got some sort of specific example on how such a rating could work
as well?

>If I can get nations VCs for some games, I could put these into a
>spreadsheet and give some examples of what the scoring would look
>like.

*** We don't have all that information I am afraid. We have some of it but
not all. We have 99% of the games top 3 nations (sides and nations that
aligned) though.

> Given my druthers I'd omit the gold score (the most prone to
>abuse and the one that is the least tied to the actual strength of the
>nation) and use only characters, armies, economy. I'd prefer real
>data to guesses/anecdotes.
>
>Note that this could very well motivate people to do well in
>traditionally second-tier nations, as it would then be much harder to
>improve your ratings with the Noldo than it would be to do so with the
>Woodmen. Folks would still want to have fun with the powerful
>positions, of course, but not for the purpose of improving their
>standings. Given the dialog, its worth noting that a proper rating
>system can do a lot to encourage good playing habits.

*** In theory I like this but in practice how do we get it to work?

Clint

[marc_pinsonneault]

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...> wrote:
> Have you got some sort of specific example on how such a rating
could work
> as well?
Sure. Define the score so that it goes up if you've done better than
the average for your position, and so that it goes down if you've done
worse than the average.

Example: a Noldo player scores 1100 and a Woodman player scores 1000.
Half of all of the winning Noldo players have scored less than 1100,
so the Noldo player has no change in their rating. 75% of the winning
Woodmen players have scored less than 1000, so the Woodman players
rating goes up by (say) 25 points. Individual points are scored only
for members of a winning team, since the losing scores will be heavily
weighted towards 400 irrespective of nation. You could adjust the
benefits up/down to make the score changes similar to the other gauges
of player score.

>
> >If I can get nations VCs for some games, I could put these into a
> >spreadsheet and give some examples of what the scoring would look
> >like.
>
> *** We don't have all that information I am afraid. We have some of
it but
> not all. We have 99% of the games top 3 nations (sides and nations
that
> aligned) though.
>
>
> > Given my druthers I'd omit the gold score (the most prone to
> >abuse and the one that is the least tied to the actual strength of the
> >nation) and use only characters, armies, economy. I'd prefer real
> >data to guesses/anecdotes.
> >
> >Note that this could very well motivate people to do well in
> >traditionally second-tier nations, as it would then be much harder to
> >improve your ratings with the Noldo than it would be to do so with the
> >Woodmen. Folks would still want to have fun with the powerful
> >positions, of course, but not for the purpose of improving their
> >standings. Given the dialog, its worth noting that a proper rating
> >system can do a lot to encourage good playing habits.
>
> *** In theory I like this but in practice how do we get it to work?
>
> Clint

It would help to gather data on completed games to see what the scores
would look like...I have some, but only for the games that I've
actually completed.

cheers,

Marc

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

> > Have you got some sort of specific example on how such a rating
>could work > as well?
>Sure. Define the score so that it goes up if you've done better than
>the average for your position, and so that it goes down if you've done
>worse than the average.
>
>Example: a Noldo player scores 1100 and a Woodman player scores 1000.
>Half of all of the winning Noldo players have scored less than 1100,
>so the Noldo player has no change in their rating. 75% of the winning
>Woodmen players have scored less than 1000, so the Woodman players
>rating goes up by (say) 25 points. Individual points are scored only
>for members of a winning team, since the losing scores will be heavily
>weighted towards 400 irrespective of nation. You could adjust the
>benefits up/down to make the score changes similar to the other gauges
>of player score.

Interesting and possibly usable. This would be using the GSI VP/ (with or
without VCs taken into account, and you're suggesting we remove gold as a
value). But the danger of this is that it does not reward the good team
mate that got hit by a group of opponents (eg Eothraim) held them off
valiantly allowing the rest of the team to do well. I am a little worried
that this encourages the use of VPs as a rating system though - which I
personally find not a valid indication of how well someone has done in the
game. (At present we don't have most of the information and collating it
all would take a lot of effort - but we could do it).

This could be a rating here - that is used to modify the Istari rating in
some manner - where we have a modifier to the VPs scored and ignore the
positioning as a factor? Thoughts on that?

How could we do that? Laurence's idea of voting is the way forward there I
think. BUT the big danger of that one is, that players are mostly
apathetic, they just want to play games. For chatty people like most on
this list (by definition) then it's not a problem to vote (on whatever
criteria we want) but most wouldn't. Game 39 we had around half the
players vote and I pushed that hard, and was able to as I was actually
playing in the game. (For example; after several years of running the game
most players haven't read the house rules!) That's part of the reason I
would like it that we do the work here - as it puts less emphasis on
players having to do it, which I think is less likely to succeed.

We've got some players like Brad, Oystein, Laurence, Richard, Kevin, Colin
x2, Chris, Mikex2, Tom, and quite a few others (my apologies if I have
missed them) that put a fair bit of effort into the overall game,
developing ideas. As with any system of discussion there are major
disagreements, that are not possible to resolve in some cases, but often we
can get somewhere here. Keep on plugging guys and thanks for your efforts
so far.

Clint

[taurnil]

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "corsairs game 101" <corsairs101@h...> wrote:
> ME Games wrote:
> I remember the bad old days of VCs.

Me, too.


I love how the current lack of ranking
> encourages play based on "just having fun". I'm very strongly
against
> anything that messes up the fun aspects of the game. Why make it
personal?
>
> Darrell, so my opinion counts, Shimel

I remember having this conversation before on another bb. Everyone
knows that the VC system built into the game is not "just" in the
sense of not truly rewarding good play, and certainly not rewarding
team play. Yet in a way I do miss the old GSI GWC system. It
introduced a kind of moral tension into the game that made things
interesting. You always knew that your teammates, and especially
neutrals, had a genuine motivation for screwing you. Part of the art
of the game was figuring out who was trustworthy and who wasn't. You
even had to figure it out about yourself.

Of course, the really good players figured out that team play made
the game so much more fun and brought so many more victories that the
GWCs became trivial by comparison. Good teams sought to engineer the
final turns to give the GWCs to the best and/or most deserving
players on the team.

I can't bring myself to care a bit about any "true" ranking system.
Objective ranking is impossible. The only rank I care about is the
purely subjective rankings we can earn in the opinions of the
teammates we like and respect.

Mark

[urzahi1]

> >Most of the arguments against a new ratings system seem to be of
the
> >"fear of change" variety.
>
> Incorrect. They are of the "little to no gain, potential for
negative
> effetcs".

You say tomato...

> >It is all speculation on both sides, based on
> >personal opinions with very little in the way of actual evidence.
>
> I suppose that a lot of past expereince with a game ranking that
promoted a
> "not just for fun" type of strategy doesn't count.

I guess it's not totally irrelevant, but it's still just
speculation, based on a very vaguely similar concept under different
circumstances. None of us has seen a team-based ranking system in
MePBM. To say that either of us knows for certain what the result
would be (or how other players will react to it) is ludicrous.

> >So why
> >don't we at least give it a try?
>
> Why? You have yet to prove there will be sufficient bennifit to
out weigh
> the potential harm.

So, there should be absolutely no change whatsoever unless someone
can first PROVE that it will have no negative effects? Who must it
be proven to?

You cannot possibly PROVE anything unless it is first experiemented
with. "Something vaguely similar didn't work in the past under
different circumstances" is no reason not to try something new.

In order to advance, and to make things better, you have to have to
at least be willing to try something new. Certainly research it
first, and get opinions on how best to proceed. But to not advance
simply out of fear of the possible consequences will do nothing but
stagnate the game. Middle-earth Games has taken some steps forward
in trying to make the game more enjoyable, and most have been
successful. Lets try to keep an open mind about future changes, and
not choke them off out of a fear of what might happen.

Mike Mulka

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

Drastic but it could work~! :-) I think players would compain though.

Clint

At 22:32 16/09/02, you wrote:
><<Clint wrote:>>
><<How could we do that? Laurence's idea of voting is the way forward
>there I think. BUT the big danger of that one is, that players are
>mostly apathetic, they just want to play games. For chatty people like
>most on this list (by definition) then it's not a problem to vote (on
>whatever criteria we want) but most wouldn't. Game 39 we had around
>half the players vote and I pushed that hard, and was able to as I was
>actually playing in the game. (For example; after several years of
>running the game most players haven't read the house rules!) That's
>part of the reason I would like it that we do the work here - as it puts
>less emphasis on players having to do it, which I think is less likely
>to succeed.>>
>
>How about when the game is over, everyone gets charged for the final
>turn, (like now), but instead of sending the final PDF, you send an
>E-Mail saying "Game over. Please respond the the following vote to
>receive your final PDF results file." As long as everyone knows this
>will happen up front, it shouldn't be a problem as far as people feeling
>they got somehow cheated out of their final PDF. Undoubtedly some may
>just forgoe their final PDF file, but probably most wouldn't.
>
>Mike Mulka
>
>
>
>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/

************************************************** **************
Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@...
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
************************************************** **************

[Laurence G. Tilley]

At 16:06 16/09/2002, you wrote:
>How could we do that? Laurence's idea of voting is the way forward there I
>think.

Well, not my idea, I was just recycling it.

> BUT the big danger of that one is, that players are mostly
>apathetic, they just want to play games.

Naaah. People like feedback, and praise. By and large, at the end of a
good game, people are appreciative of their team mates. Send out a short
simple form at the end of a game, asking for the best 3 allied and best
opponent, and you'll find most players will return it.

Laurence G. Tilley

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

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

>Naaah. People like feedback, and praise. By and large, at the end of a
>good game, people are appreciative of their team mates. Send out a short
>simple form at the end of a game, asking for the best 3 allied and best
>opponent, and you'll find most players will return it.


Not my experience Laurence. Happy to be proved wrong and try to implement
this though. I've got your ideas about the way this could be voted on -
any others?

Clint

[Richard DEVEREUX]

----- Original Message -----
From: Middle Earth PBM Games
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:45 AM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Re: Player Ratings/New GWC's


Drastic but it could work~! :-) I think players would compain though.

Clint
RD: As I said before, I like the principle of voting. But it MUST be voluntary - any attempt at compulsion would be resented and you may even get players leaving the game.

If we anticipate that only a few players will bother to vote, how about making votes more valuable, like a carrot but without the stick?

Richard.


At 22:32 16/09/02, you wrote:
><<Clint wrote:>>
><<How could we do that? Laurence's idea of voting is the way forward
>there I think. BUT the big danger of that one is, that players are
>mostly apathetic, they just want to play games. For chatty people like
>most on this list (by definition) then it's not a problem to vote (on
>whatever criteria we want) but most wouldn't. Game 39 we had around
>half the players vote and I pushed that hard, and was able to as I was
>actually playing in the game. (For example; after several years of
>running the game most players haven't read the house rules!) That's
>part of the reason I would like it that we do the work here - as it puts
>less emphasis on players having to do it, which I think is less likely
>to succeed.>>
>
>How about when the game is over, everyone gets charged for the final
>turn, (like now), but instead of sending the final PDF, you send an
>E-Mail saying "Game over. Please respond the the following vote to
>receive your final PDF results file." As long as everyone knows this
>will happen up front, it shouldn't be a problem as far as people feeling
>they got somehow cheated out of their final PDF. Undoubtedly some may
>just forgoe their final PDF file, but probably most wouldn't.
>
>Mike Mulka
>
>
>
>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/

************************************************** **************
Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@...
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
************************************************** **************


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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Richard DEVEREUX]

----- Original Message -----
From: Middle Earth PBM Games
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Player Ratings



>Naaah. People like feedback, and praise. By and large, at the end of a
>good game, people are appreciative of their team mates. Send out a short
>simple form at the end of a game, asking for the best 3 allied and best
>opponent, and you'll find most players will return it.


Not my experience Laurence. Happy to be proved wrong and try to implement
this though. I've got your ideas about the way this could be voted on -
any others?

Clint

RD: HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Yes, as I've said several times already:
1) Each player gets 1 vote for the best member of his own team (why 3?) and 1 for the best member of the opposition.

or

2) Each player gets 10 votes to bestow among his own team (enabling him to vote 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc if he wishes) and a similar 10 votes to spread amongst the opposition. He can of course give all 10 votes to 1 nation if he wishes (provided it is not his own!).

For maximum effectiveness, opposing teams should NOT tell each other who is playing which nation (altho an exchange of names alone is ok). This means that votes for the opposition will be totally unbiased, even if some of the votes for allies may be suspect.

Richard.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

> RD: HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Yes, as I've said several times already:

*** Yes I have heard you. Any OTHER players opinions on how to implement a
voting system? :-)

Clint

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

> RD: As I said before, I like the principle of voting. But it MUST be
> voluntary - any attempt at compulsion would be resented and you may even
> get players leaving the game.
>
> If we anticipate that only a few players will bother to vote, how about
> making votes more valuable, like a carrot but without the stick?

I have an inkling of what you are going to say, but go on, I'll bite, how
would we do that?

Clint

[Richard DEVEREUX]

----- Original Message -----
From: Middle Earth PBM Games
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Player Ratings/New GWC's



> RD: As I said before, I like the principle of voting. But it MUST be
> voluntary - any attempt at compulsion would be resented and you may even
> get players leaving the game.
>
> If we anticipate that only a few players will bother to vote, how about
> making votes more valuable, like a carrot but without the stick?

I have an inkling of what you are going to say, but go on, I'll bite, how
would we do that?

Clint

RD: I was just stating the principle of making votes more valuable as an incentive to cast them, presumably under the umbrella of the Istari. Not being funny, but you are the mathematician! Double the number you first thought of?
Richard.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]