Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Player Ratings/New GWC's

[corsairs game 101]

>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.

The idea would have merit IF the VCs in anyway reflected how well the player
played the position. A properly played Woodmen will recruit like mad until
the DS are removed from the Misties and Greenwood, then have no armies.
He'll have a bunch of 50 agents out scouting for the allies agents and curse
squads.

Becuase of all that recruiting he did early, he probably never really built
up his economy.

A well played Woodment isn't going to score well in VCs.

However, a poorly played Woodmen will not recruit early. He'll name
characters and let the DS linger in the North. He'll build his economy
instead of building scouts. He'll hord gold instead of spreading it around.

A poorly played Woodmen may do very well in VCs.

Darrell Shimel
(Does haing my name on the email make the point more accurate?)

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

>Becuase of all that recruiting he did early, he probably never really built
>up his economy.
>
>A well played Woodment isn't going to score well in VCs.
>
>However, a poorly played Woodmen will not recruit early. He'll name
>characters and let the DS linger in the North. He'll build his economy
>instead of building scouts. He'll hord gold instead of spreading it around.
>
>A poorly played Woodmen may do very well in VCs.


Agreed

Clint

[corsairs game 101]

marc_pinsonneault wrote:
>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.

For that reason alone, I really don't like them. I don't want to win 4 of 4
games over a 4 year period, and be ranked far below someone that won 25 of
40 over that same period.

I want to be able to join experienced teams, such as the Grudge team that
you and I are on, waiting for an opponent (BTW: anyone out there, there is
an expereinced 2950/WoTR grudge team waiting fom an opponent). I also like
to join randomly formed games, suce as the 1650 game I'm in.

I wouldn't ever want to play with the players in that 1650 game. They post
their PDFs to a site, and consider that about all the communication needed.
I'm not going to let them mess up my team rankings. In fact, I'm not going
to join any randomly formed games. No way. Too risky. I'm sticking just
to teammates I know.

What am I talking about? I'm never going to have a great ranking, because I
only play 1 or 2 games at a time. I just spend a lot of time on each game
instead of paying lots of games. I keep having things like divorce and job
loss forcing me to transfer active positions, then start back over with new
games once the dust settles. I don't want a list of players that have a
crap load of money to spend, being shoved at me as the "best platers".

Darrell the nameless Shimel

[corsairs game 101]

ME Games wrote:
>BUT the big danger of that one[having players vote] is, that players
>are mostly apathetic, they just want to play games.

So, most people don't care, but you're thinking about adding a ranking
system anyway? For what reason would you want to place a "ranking system"
on the majority that deosn't want it?

I remember the bad old days of VCs. 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

[jerry.mellerick@...]

I don't care about player ratings. I don't care about them in middle earth
and I don't care about them in other PBMs.

The one exception is the catch all VC

"kill everything not on your side"

For me its all about winning and to my narrow, shallow slightly quirky way
of thinking to win in middle earth means to play as a team therefore that
is what I try and do. I don't always succeed and I like to think I don't
always fail.

So what has this got to do with the ratings? Simple have them don't have
them I couldn't care less.

What I will say is if some people want to have a ratings system, let them.
If you don't like it follows it shouldn't interfere with the why you play
and the how you play the game. Unless you happen to be very concerned about
what others think of you - which is a very circular argument if you follow
it through.

Jerry

[corsairs game 101]

>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

Stated like the great Sindar that, (what? 7 years ago. No, it has got to be
8 or 9), taught this newbie Woodmen how to find his way to Dol G. Players
know who the good players are. We don’t need some phony-bologna ranking
scheme that promotes numbers over talent.

Rankings. Bad idea.

Of course, this opinion won't count, as I don't intend to sign it.

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

Okay so how would we rectify this in your opinion. With any rating system
the more you play the more opportunity to get points you get. Most players
play 2 positions, with some mad people like mygoodself playing lots
more. (But some as multiple nations in one game).

>What am I talking about? I'm never going to have a great ranking, because I
>only play 1 or 2 games at a time. I just spend a lot of time on each game
>instead of paying lots of games.



>I don't want a list of players that have a
>crap load of money to spend, being shoved at me as the "best platers".

But if they are any good then they will have a higher rating. If they are
not so good their rating will go down. We could add a column - games
completed in that period?

Clint

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

> >BUT the big danger of that one[having players vote] is, that players
> >are mostly apathetic, they just want to play games.
>
>So, most people don't care, but you're thinking about adding a ranking
>system anyway?

No you've misread me. Most players won't want to vote (especially if they
have lost). BUT I think players would be entertained by the idea of a
Rating. This is not the same thing.

> For what reason would you want to place a "ranking system"
>on the majority that deosn't want it?

See above
Clint

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

Yes I agree. For those that they are important for then enjoy that aspect
of the game, for those that aren't into that sort of thing ignore it.

Clint


>I don't care about player ratings. I don't care about them in middle earth
>and I don't care about them in other PBMs.
>
>The one exception is the catch all VC
>
>"kill everything not on your side"
>
>For me its all about winning and to my narrow, shallow slightly quirky way
>of thinking to win in middle earth means to play as a team therefore that
>is what I try and do. I don't always succeed and I like to think I don't
>always fail.
>
>So what has this got to do with the ratings? Simple have them don't have
>them I couldn't care less.
>
>What I will say is if some people want to have a ratings system, let them.
>If you don't like it follows it shouldn't interfere with the why you play
>and the how you play the game. Unless you happen to be very concerned about
>what others think of you - which is a very circular argument if you follow
>it through.
>
>Jerry
>
>
>
>

[Kenneth Weed]

I suppose I am not as vetran as others on this list, and I know that the two
sides of the argument have been given a number of spins, however, since
Clint did ask for player's opinions, therefore I will give mine.

As stated below, objective ranking in a game that is heavily based on player
interaction is all but impossible. About this ranking system, I really have
two key requests:

1) It never interferes with me joining a game with whomever I want, whenever
I want, irrespective of points, rankings or other "fuzzy math".

2) As such, I would suggest, like in chess, you have sanctioned (please feel
free to insert whatever word you think works best in place of sanctioned)
games, and unsanctioned games. Sanctioned games have rank, unsanctioned
games do not. If I don't want to get involved with this, I should have the
ability to avoid it, for my $7 a turn per position.

My key factors are a) that I am considered to be a good and fair team player
by my teammates and b) that I have fun. If someone else wants to inject an
additional layer of competition into their games, great! I am not
interested in that right now. Its a game to take my mind off of reality,
not make my head hurt with spinning numbers and equations that don't take
into account the diplomacy in a diplomatic game. Lets face it, its not like
you can use diplomacy to get someone with twice as many rooks and pawns to
join your side in a chess game:)

Clint, just an idea. If you do run as sanctioned and unsanctioned, you may
find the people in those competitive games are more likely to be interested
in giving their input. As such, you may be able to get them to actually
provide interactive rankings of their teammates. I can think of no more
accurate judge of "how good" a player was than what his teammates, and I
suppose his opponents, think of him. Or at the very least, plug the players
view of who is best into your equation some place. I know how math people
get about their equations...;)

-Kenneth Weed


>From: "taurnil" <historian683@...>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Player Ratings/New GWC's
>Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 17:10:54 -0000
>
>--- 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
>




************************************************** **********
I believe in the golden rule...Give as good as you get...
I mean, do unto others as you would have done unto you...

-I dont know who has said it, but it definitely needs to be said

[corsairs game 101]

>Okay so how would we rectify this in your opinion.

Leave the "VERY GOOD" game alone, instead of risking messing it up with some
ranking system that can't measure how good of a player you really are.

> >I don't want a list of players that have a
> >crap load of money to spend, being shoved at me as the "best platers".
>
>But if they are any good then they will have a higher rating. If they are
>not so good their rating will go down. We could add a column - games
>completed in that period?
>Clint

Well, we can get as complicated as the Bowl Championship Series.... Oh wait.
Anyone not in America probably has no clue how truely complicated a system
can be.

Here in America, we have this football thing, where every college above a
few thousand students has a team. Even with multiple divisions based on the
size of the school, there are over a hundred teams in the top division.
They are organized into about a dozen conferences including Big East, Pac
10, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, WAC, Mountain West, Conference USA,
Mid-America...

So, how do you pick the best teams? How do you pick a national champion?
Well, there is this voting thing, except there are two systems there. One
uses the sports wirters opinions, and the other uses the coaches opinions.
It was possible to have 2 "national champions".

What was worse was that the sports writers and coaches were very impressed
with lopsided victories and huge stats on yards gained and such. The result
was that teams like Nebraska (always a top 10 team) would beat up on Azusa
Pacific (not even in the top division) by a score of 60-3, every year.

So, a "ranking system" was needed. However, they couldn't use just your
record as many teams would go undefeated in a season. They couldn't use
just margin of victory as it encouraged just stomping on weak opponents.
They had to add things like, the the win-loss record of your opponents.
Margin of victory of your opponent. Win-loss record of your opponent's
opponent. Where the team was ranked when you beat (or lossed) to them.

Now, Nebraska losing to Florida changes the ranking of not only the two
teams involved, but the teams that played them, and the teams that played
the teams that played them.

This is really an oversimplification, because there are only 3 guys on the
planet that understand the college football BCS ranking system, and all
three of them were driven insane by it, and they now reside in Sunnyside
Mental Illness Treatment facility just outside Newark.

So, what was the point. Any ranking system that truely indicated how good
of a player you are would have to account for how well you played. Not just
the results, but every email where you proposed an idea. Every turn you
scouted the enemy, cast a curse spell that weakened the enemies best agent
for your teammate to finish off, every minute you spent coordinating the
artifact hunt, or camp placement, or calculating the next commodity buy out.

The game is far more complicated than football, and any system that truely
ranked the players skill would be far too complicated to be workable.
Better to have nothing than something really bad.

Darrell

[Urzahil]

<<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

[Urzahil]

<<corsairs game 101 wrote:>>
<<The game is far more complicated than football, and any system that
truly ranked the players skill would be far too complicated to be
workable. Better to have nothing than something really bad.>>

I agree it would be better to have nothing than something really bad.
However, no one has so far come even close to successfully proving that
this will be really bad, while it appears the majority of posters seem
to want to give it a go. (Then there is the vast majority of non-posters
who obviously don't feel so strongly negative about it that they would
quit the game if a new ratings system were implemented.)

Most of the arguments against a new ratings system seem to be of the
"fear of change" variety. It is all speculation on both sides, based on
personal opinions with very little in the way of actual evidence. So why
don't we at least give it a try?

Mike Mulka

[corsairs game 101]

>I agree it would be better to have nothing than something really bad.
>However, no one has so far come even close to successfully proving that
>this will be really bad, while it appears the majority of posters seem
>to want to give it a go.

1) I'm really not sure what posts you've been reading, but I've seen a
majority againt this.

2) Inductive Proof that the new system is likely to be bad.

P1: There will be ways to manipulate the rankings.
P2: The rankings will cause some to change their behavior to that which will
maximize their rankings.
P3: These changes in behavior will mostly involved causing the game to end
quickly, carefully selecting whom you're willing to play with and against,
and maximizing chance to win instead of maximizing your oppertunity to enjoy
yourself.
P4: Having some players playing for anything other than fun, is likely to be
un-fun for those in a game with those players.

C1: Therefore, the ranking system does effect those that ignore them.
C2: The ranking system is likely to have negative effects upon the game.

>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".

>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.

>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.

>
>Mike Mulka
>

Some guy named Darrell Shimel

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

>
>Clint, just an idea. If you do run as sanctioned and unsanctioned, you may
>find the people in those competitive games are more likely to be interested
>in giving their input. As such, you may be able to get them to actually
>provide interactive rankings of their teammates. I can think of no more
>accurate judge of "how good" a player was than what his teammates, and I
>suppose his opponents, think of him. Or at the very least, plug the players
>view of who is best into your equation some place. I know how math people
>get about their equations...;)


Problem with that is that we don't have enough of a player base to be able
to support that. I would say that players would play for fun regardless.

Clint

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

At 23:19 16/09/02, you wrote:
> >I agree it would be better to have nothing than something really bad.
> >However, no one has so far come even close to successfully proving that
> >this will be really bad, while it appears the majority of posters seem
> >to want to give it a go.
>
>1) I'm really not sure what posts you've been reading, but I've seen a
>majority againt this.

** Not my perspective. If you went by Quantity then maybe yes... :-)


>2) Inductive Proof that the new system is likely to be bad.
>
>P1: There will be ways to manipulate the rankings.

*** Any game there is.

>P2: The rankings will cause some to change their behavior to that which will
>maximize their rankings.

** Very minimally

>P3: These changes in behavior will mostly involved causing the game to end
>quickly, carefully selecting whom you're willing to play with and against,
>and maximizing chance to win instead of maximizing your oppertunity to enjoy
>yourself.

*** Um I don't see that at all. It could happen but then again it could be
slower... I don't see any evidence to support your viewpoint here.

>P4: Having some players playing for anything other than fun, is likely to be
>un-fun for those in a game with those players.

** Lots of types of fun in the game! Assassinating an enemy character is
certainly fun for you but not so fun for the enemy.


> >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.

** But it could be fun. And based on other experience and experience
within the ME milieu it is fun. I would love to know what my rating is
comparitively to others in the game. You could say that playing to win is
not fun as others are not playing for the same goal by the same
argument. But I do agree it could have an impact, but I would hope that
it would be a good impact not a bad impact. I would certainly not have put
it forward if I did consider that it would be a bad one, nor spent many
hours working it out.

Clint

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

One basic concept that I am interested in is trust of the GMs. Over time
we have attempted to build up a base of trust with the players about the
methodology of the games we run.

With that in mind I think that the Player Rating scheme is a good one and
would certainly want to give it a go. At present I have lots of postings
from a small handful of players who are negative, more of a "that's okay"
type from a bigger pool of players (some off list) so would like to at
least attempt it.

So feedback on what would improve the system would be very useful. It's
only been a couple of days since we put it forward and I think the true
test is in the actual use of the system to see what sort of results it
provides so I would like to see how things pan out over the next few days
or weeks.

We're attempting to be as flexible as we can here listening to the various
viewpoints and opinions. As with many such things where ideas clash
tempers can fray so try to be calm (that goes for me as much as anyone else).

There's a lot of discussion about might bes and could bes but I would like
to see how this stands up to reality. If players don't like it we'll stop
it (or at least modify it). If they do like it then that's good and we
have managed to improve the overall aspect of the game. As you might be
aware we are attempting to update and improve the game and I think this is
one aspect of such improvement.

Thanks

Clint

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

I have not heard much about the Ainur (Grudge Game) rating in particular -
which I think will help to evaluate Grudge teams and have a record
available to have a "winner" and "losing" teams over a period of time with
that replacing the World Champs. How do players who play in such Grudge
games think about that? I designed the ratings for this one in particular
with a method of allowing teams over different games (2950/165/1000) being
able to evaluate their performance relative to others in the game and
seeking out similarly skilled opposition.

Clint

[Benjamin Shushan]

(Clint, I've said much of what I'm about to say "directly" but thought some of
it should be thrown into the "public" mix).

The WC's and "general" Grudge Games should (must!) be rated separately.

Otherwise, you are "wiping the slate" with respect to WC games allready
played. Unless you plan to refund the fees paid by participants in the
allready-completed, or currently running, WC games.

Also, are the Ainur ratings intended to rate individuals' performance in the
grudge game setting? Or, are they to rate grudge _teams_?? Makes a big
difference, as far as my thoughts on the matter in general ...

b

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

> I have not heard much about the Ainur (Grudge Game) rating in particular -
> which I think will help to evaluate Grudge teams and have a record
> available to have a "winner" and "losing" teams over a period of time with
> that replacing the World Champs. How do players who play in such Grudge
> games think about that? I designed the ratings for this one in particular
> with a method of allowing teams over different games (2950/165/1000) being
> able to evaluate their performance relative to others in the game and
> seeking out similarly skilled opposition.
>
> Clint
>
>
> 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/

[Jason Bennett]

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
> I have not heard much about the Ainur (Grudge Game) rating in particular -
> which I think will help to evaluate Grudge teams and have a record
> available to have a "winner" and "losing" teams over a period of time with
> that replacing the World Champs. How do players who play in such Grudge
> games think about that? I designed the ratings for this one in particular
> with a method of allowing teams over different games (2950/165/1000) being
> able to evaluate their performance relative to others in the game and
> seeking out similarly skilled opposition.

First, I think the WC is neat besides the rankings. It's more of an
Olympics type thing, with bragging rights at stake. You can rate those
teams, certainly, but keep the round-robin going.

As to the rating, while I've played several grudge games, I've never
been on one team in a series. It would be good, though, to have a ladder
or rating of teams, so more grudge games could be played. Right now, it
takes forever to get one going. I think it'd be very neat to join a
game, declare your rating, and what famous grudge team you're on.

jason


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

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

>The WC's and "general" Grudge Games should (must!) be rated separately.
>
>Otherwise, you are "wiping the slate" with respect to WC games allready
>played. Unless you plan to refund the fees paid by participants in the
>allready-completed, or currently running, WC games.

At present the WCs is coming to an end - lots of teams have given up the
ghost and you have beaten the others... :-) It's been run for quite a
while now (3 years or so). I would like to upgrade/replace it with
something else at present I am toying with the idea of the Ainur rating
(with your wins from the WC's taken into account).

>Also, are the Ainur ratings intended to rate individuals' performance in the
>grudge game setting? Or, are they to rate grudge _teams_?? Makes a big
>difference, as far as my thoughts on the matter in general ...

The ratings gained in Aniur would go to the Maia, Valar, Istari. My
feeling that I am getting is that players aren't very happy about the
Istari ratings at present, but the others are okay and some want to try it
out, others to opt out. So this means that if you play in a Grudge game
your Grudge team rating would be altered for the Ainur rating and your
Individual rating (Maia, Istari, Valar) would be modified appropriately for
that player. That's the intention at present. There's a clear
dichotomy between the Istari (more individualistic) and the Ainur (very
much team orientated) styles of play but for now I am happy to go with that
as a concept.

Thoughts? Discussion?

Clint

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

Okay yours and Ben's points taken. I'll give it some more thought but I am
not sure how to keep the WC's going.
Clint

> > I have not heard much about the Ainur (Grudge Game) rating in particular -
> > which I think will help to evaluate Grudge teams and have a record
> > available to have a "winner" and "losing" teams over a period of time with
> > that replacing the World Champs. How do players who play in such Grudge
> > games think about that? I designed the ratings for this one in particular
> > with a method of allowing teams over different games (2950/165/1000) being
> > able to evaluate their performance relative to others in the game and
> > seeking out similarly skilled opposition.
>
>First, I think the WC is neat besides the rankings. It's more of an
>Olympics type thing, with bragging rights at stake. You can rate those
>teams, certainly, but keep the round-robin going.
>
>As to the rating, while I've played several grudge games, I've never
>been on one team in a series. It would be good, though, to have a ladder
>or rating of teams, so more grudge games could be played. Right now, it
>takes forever to get one going. I think it'd be very neat to join a
>game, declare your rating, and what famous grudge team you're on.
>
> jason
>
>
>
>--
>Jason Bennett, jasonab@...
>E pur si muove!
>
>
>
>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 Games]

Okay we have the updated versions of the 1650 map - one with the Nation map
borders on it and one without. We intend to use the one wih the Map Border
for the Laminated map - can you check it and get back to us. (We have
multiple times so have gone a bit hex-blind!)

Thanks

Clint

[GUD]

I get a page not found at this one 18:56 CTE

David Clemmensen

Middle Earth PBM Games <me@...> wrote:
> Okay we have the updated versions of the 1650 map - one with
> the Nation map
> borders on it and one without. We intend to use the one wih
> the Map Border
> for the Laminated map - can you check it and get back to us.
> (We have
> multiple times so have gone a bit hex-blind!)
>
> Thanks
>
> Clint
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/ofVplB/TM
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------~->
>
> 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/
>
>

[Richard DEVEREUX]

----- Original Message -----
From: Urzahil
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:32 PM
Subject: RE: [mepbmlist] Re: Player Ratings/New GWC's


<<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

RD: I like the idea of voting in principle: each player should be allowed to cast one vote for the best nation on his team, AND one vote for the best nation on the opposing team. However I see difficulties in practice.

Firstly, voting should be voluntary. Any attempt at compulsion would be resented by those who don't want to vote. Why should they vote if they don't want to? Let's keep freedom of choice. Probably only a minority of players will vote, but that makes their votes all the more valuable. Players who receive votes know they have earned them! You could even have a whole new category: players' most respected player (g)!

Secondly, should eliminated and dropped/replaced players be allowed to vote? I would argue yes in every case. Eliminated players should be asked to vote with their final resultsheet. It's no good asking such a player to vote when the game finally finishes. It might be YEARS later and that game would be a distant memory.

Similarly, players who drop should be asked to vote at the time. I suspect that this category will yield the smallest number of votes as many such players are disgruntled for one reason or another, or simply don't have enough time/can't be bothered. Therefore I see no harm in allowing standby players (who are generally of sterner stuff) to vote as well.

Finally it shouldn't matter how many nations a player has in one game, he still only gets one vote. We can't have people like me, with 3 nations in one game, casting 3 votes all for the same player, can we?

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]

[Richard DEVEREUX]

----- Original Message -----
From: Middle Earth PBM Games
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Player Rating


One basic concept that I am interested in is trust of the GMs. Over time
we have attempted to build up a base of trust with the players about the
methodology of the games we run.

With that in mind I think that the Player Rating scheme is a good one and
would certainly want to give it a go. At present I have lots of postings
from a small handful of players who are negative, more of a "that's okay"
type from a bigger pool of players (some off list) so would like to at
least attempt it.

So feedback on what would improve the system would be very useful. It's
only been a couple of days since we put it forward and I think the true
test is in the actual use of the system to see what sort of results it
provides so I would like to see how things pan out over the next few days
or weeks.

We're attempting to be as flexible as we can here listening to the various
viewpoints and opinions. As with many such things where ideas clash
tempers can fray so try to be calm (that goes for me as much as anyone else).

There's a lot of discussion about might bes and could bes but I would like
to see how this stands up to reality. If players don't like it we'll stop
it (or at least modify it). If they do like it then that's good and we
have managed to improve the overall aspect of the game. As you might be
aware we are attempting to update and improve the game and I think this is
one aspect of such improvement.

Thanks

Clint
RD: Hi Clint (and all),

I was one of the first to say I didn't like your proposed system, but I'm quite prepared to give it a try. I'm curious to know what my ranking is however you measure it!

From what I've read there seems to be general agreement that the existing system of VCs and VPs is not a good one and something better should be introduced. Yours is the only system, so far, which has won a substantial if not majority body of support. If we don't try to improve things we never will, so let's give it a go!

All credit to you and your team at Harle for your hard work and for trying to make improvements. Keep up the good work and DLTBGYD!

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]

>
> Firstly, voting should be voluntary. Any attempt at compulsion would
> be resented by those who don't want to vote. Why should they vote if
> they don't want to? Let's keep freedom of choice.

** Doesn't Australia have a different version where you have to vote? (Am
I mistaken). A different form of voting.

> Secondly, should eliminated and dropped/replaced players be allowed to
> vote? I would argue yes in every case. Eliminated players should be
> asked to vote with their final resultsheet. It's no good asking such a
> player to vote when the game finally finishes. It might be YEARS later
> and that game would be a distant memory.

** Um hard to admin.


> Similarly, players who drop should be asked to vote at the time. I
> suspect that this category will yield the smallest number of votes as
> many such players are disgruntled for one reason or another, or simply
> don't have enough time/can't be bothered. Therefore I see no harm in
> allowing standby players (who are generally of sterner stuff) to vote as well.

** Similarly hard - actually more difficult as you are correct in your
appraisal.

> Finally it shouldn't matter how many nations a player has in one game,
> he still only gets one vote. We can't have people like me, with 3
> nations in one game, casting 3 votes all for the same player, can we?

** I concur

> 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 - 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 Games]

> I was one of the first to say I didn't like your proposed system, but
> I'm quite prepared to give it a try. I'm curious to know what my ranking
> is however you measure it!

*** Me to! (I have no idea - I know that my 1000 rating is there was one
would be bad though...)

> From what I've read there seems to be general agreement that the
> existing system of VCs and VPs is not a good one and something better
> should be introduced.

*** Only from the list - off list and the quiet players aren't necessarily
of that opinion. (You could argue "put up or shut up" but I would not
agree with that in spirit).

> Yours is the only system, so far, which has won a substantial if not
> majority body of support. If we don't try to improve things we never
> will, so let's give it a go!

** My thoughts exactly. It's a worrying day when I agree with Brad,
Laurence and Richard but very heartening as well... :-) Makes me all
teary... :-) Faith in human nature and discourse and all that jazz.

> All credit to you and your team at Harle for your hard work and for
> trying to make improvements. Keep up the good work and DLTBGYD!

*** We try. :-) (Enough back-slapping back to the grind stone).

Clint

[Richard DEVEREUX]

----- Original Message -----
From: Middle Earth PBM Games
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Player Ratings - Voting



>
> Firstly, voting should be voluntary. Any attempt at compulsion would
> be resented by those who don't want to vote. Why should they vote if
> they don't want to? Let's keep freedom of choice.

** Doesn't Australia have a different version where you have to vote? (Am
I mistaken). A different form of voting.

RD: You are quite correct. In Oz citizens are obliged by law to vote. But I much prefer the British system, which means you don't have to vote for either bunch of lying hypocrites if you don't want to. But in ME, if you try to compel players to do something they don't want to do, you may drive them away. So, keep it voluntary.

> Secondly, should eliminated and dropped/replaced players be allowed to
> vote? I would argue yes in every case. Eliminated players should be
> asked to vote with their final resultsheet. It's no good asking such a
> player to vote when the game finally finishes. It might be YEARS later
> and that game would be a distant memory.

** Um hard to admin.


> Similarly, players who drop should be asked to vote at the time. I
> suspect that this category will yield the smallest number of votes as
> many such players are disgruntled for one reason or another, or simply
> don't have enough time/can't be bothered. Therefore I see no harm in
> allowing standby players (who are generally of sterner stuff) to vote as well.

** Similarly hard - actually more difficult as you are correct in your
appraisal.

> Finally it shouldn't matter how many nations a player has in one game,
> he still only gets one vote. We can't have people like me, with 3
> nations in one game, casting 3 votes all for the same player, can we?

** I concur

> 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 - 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
************************************************** **************



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]

[Urzahil]

<<Richard DEVEREUX wrote:>>
<<Firstly, voting should be voluntary. Any attempt at compulsion would
be resented by those who don't want to vote. Why should they vote if
they don't want to? Let's keep freedom of choice. Probably only a
minority of players will vote, but that makes their votes all the more
valuable. Players who receive votes know they have earned them! You
could even have a whole new category: players' most respected player
(g)!>>

I was concerned that having only 2-3 people per game vote would tend to
make the vote results of minimal importance. I doubt MeGames can afford
to offer a significant enticement for anyone who votes, so I was trying
to come up with something that cost them nothing, but would still be an
incentive. Also, people wouldn't be forced to vote, as they could still
not vote if they wished. They just wouldn't receive their final PDF.
Still, I agree that there might be some players who resented being
"forced" to vote, so it would probably be safer just to let voting be
voluntary, despite the possibility of minimalizing the result.

<<Secondly, should eliminated and dropped/replaced players be allowed to
vote? I would argue yes in every case. Eliminated players should be
asked to vote with their final resultsheet. It's no good asking such a
player to vote when the game finally finishes. It might be YEARS later
and that game would be a distant memory. Similarly, players who drop
should be asked to vote at the time. I suspect that this category will
yield the smallest number of votes as many such players are disgruntled
for one reason or another, or simply don't have enough time/can't be
bothered. Therefore I see no harm in allowing standby players (who are
generally of sterner stuff) to vote as well.>>

I personally disagree. As you stated, many players who drop are
disgruntled for one reason or another. I'm not certain their vote would
be objective at that time. Also, if someone doesn't care enough about
the game to stay in, do we really want their opinion about who the best
player was? A player who was eliminiated is another story, and I agree
that they should still get a vote. I don't think I'd be interested in
the opinions of someone who dropped the game and left their allies high
and dry, (possibly after a few non-cooperative, non-communicative
turns).

<<It is a very BAD idea to "punish" players for bailing out. Some
players drop for very good real-life reasons. Sometimes these reasons
are of such importance that the courtesy of telling Harle and/or their
team-mates is forgotten. Sometimes players fall out with team-mates and
drop a game in a huff. Sometimes players simply disagree so strongly
with the strategy being pursued by their team that they drop. There is
a good chance that most of these players will join another game of ME,
but if you "punish" them you may very well put them off playing
altogether.>>

It takes a matter of seconds to send an E-Mail to former teammates
telling them you can't go on. Also, since this is a team game, if a
player drops a game in a huff, or disagrees with their teammates so much
that they drop, then it seems fair that their team-based player rating
shouldn't benefit if their former allegiance wins the game.

I agree that you need to somehow separate players who dropped a viable
position from those who dropped a hopeless one, and we have yet to
define viable and hopeless in any sort of concrete way. We may not be
able to find a way to fairly punish dropped players, but I don't think
we should reward them by allowing them to vote either. I would also like
to see a cap applied to their player rating for that game. (ie; They can
go down if their side eventually loses, but they can't go up if their
side eventually wins.) After all, their drop probably contributed to a
defeat, and likely didn't help a victory.

In any event, while punishing a dropped player without a way to
determine if the drop was reasonable may be a bad idea, neither would I
want to see them rewarded with a vote (or a team-based ratings
increase).

Mike Mulka

[Rodrigo Manhaes]

Richard DEVEREUX wrote:

> All credit to you and your team at Harle for your hard work and for trying to make improvements. Keep up the good work and DLTBGYD!

Hehehe, I don't know what's worse, your using the DLTBGYD acronym or my
recognizing it and feeling an urge to go to Kazaa to download the
Toasters song... :P

Manhaes

--
"Mortis In Anima
Curam Gero Cutis"
Carl Orff - "Carmina Burana"




Wed Sep*18,*2002 11:49*pm
Show Message Info



#11185 of 19865

Msg List

<!--
document.writeln("<Prev");
// -->


<Prev

|
<!--
document.writeln("Next>");
// -->


Next>



Up Thread View Formatted Use*Fixed*Width*Font Wrap*Lines



Rodrigo Manhaes <rs.manhaes@...>

manhaes
Offline Send Email















Forward




<!--
document.writeln("<*Prev Message");
// -->


<*Prev Message

*|*
<!--
document.writeln("Next Message*>");
// -->


Next Message*>

















Expand Messages
Author

Sort by Date