Player Rating plus

[D Newman]

3 additions:

- please add an MVP vote to the score. Yes, it's
subjective, but also helpful -- ratings aside, it
doesn't take long to see who helps your side, and this
is a good way to account for an important factor.

(>have a hard time beliving that most MEPBM teams are
going to vote for the QA who sent 100k gold to his
allies over the CL with 75 kills
>I concur.)

I don't. In my last game of 1650, our CL player was
excellent not because he got the most kills (which he
did), but because he was always there to contribute to
any effort, in many ways. Other players felt the same.

Of the three of us who have commented on this so far,
all agree that team contribution -- more than, say,
strict number of kills -- matters most. Maybe other
players would feel the same way. Please add an MVP
vote and score addition.

- add a relative nation score. You can use this one
that Marc contributed

>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.

or you can use Brad Brunet's statistical variation in
Bree 13.

Clint, you objected this:

>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

which mases the third suggestion:

- have a penalty for elimination and a bonus for
completion. This is a war game! When your nation goes
out, your side suffers. Many, many eliminations result
from preventable player error, including simple
failure to plan ahead.

Some don't, of course, and we could split hairs
forever (comparing the QA not just to other QA's, but
to those in games with the same sort of neutral
declarations, or Northmen when the Blind Sorceror army
attacks and when it doesn't, etc) but the key factor
is the same: your side is stronger when your nation
remains in the game -- or at least it should be!

Dan

[Laurence G. Tilley]

At 18:13 16/09/2002, you wrote:
>We could have an additional rating - which I quite like the idea of with
>voting. If so I would suggest many criteria with a rating of 1-10 that you
>put for each player on your team.
>
>Eg
>Teamsmanship 1-10
>Skill 1-10
>Diplomacy 1-10

Urgh. Please Keep It Simple. Just vote for 1st 2nd and 3rd best
contribution, and best opponent.

Laurence G. Tilley

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

[Laurence G. Tilley]

At 16:24 17/09/2002, Clint wrote:
>One other danger of voting systems is the blatant "I'll vote for you if you
>vote for me" which is closely backed up by the your my best mate and we get
>on so of course it was easier to play with you and hence I vote for you.

You have to be explicit about it in the house rules, and you should repeat
on the voting forms:
- no canvassing (or negative canvassing "Don't vote for Fred")
- a secret vote
- in fact no discussion of the voting within the team whatsoever
- anybody breaks the above 3 principles, in no circumstances vote for him

Most MEBBM players are decent and fair, and will abide by such guidelines
if reminded of them.

Laurence G. Tilley

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

[Jason Bennett]

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:
>
> Most MEBBM players are decent and fair, and will abide by such guidelines
> if reminded of them.

Tell that to CO101. :-))

While part of me really likes the voting idea, I think it does have some
drawbacks:

1. Will people vote? Disagreement on this.

2. Will people vote fairly? Probably yes, but their criteria may or may
not be the best.

3. Will this encourage overplay? By that, I mean right now everyone wins
and loses equally, also under Clint's system. With voting, "role
playing" (that is, not being a star) is discouraged: you won't get voted
for. Why not go out in a blaze of glory?

I'm also not clear the nations have an equal chance of being recognized.
Certain nations, by their position and power, have a better chance of
changing the game. I understand that spectacular play by other nations
could push votes their way, but I think we all agree that, given an
equal level of play by all players, certain nations will attract more
attention than others.

jason

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

[GUD]

Im agenst a voting system and woud proberbly no vote
in most grung games ther is no clear Best player

and a secret vote comme on stand up to your opinion
and if somone went like vote foer me or dont vote vote foer LGT i voud votefoer him as most anoing player.

the only thing i like to know from a rating system is games played games won (as a team) games droped



"Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@...> wrote:
> At 16:24 17/09/2002, Clint wrote:
> >One other danger of voting systems is the blatant "I'll
> vote for you if you
> >vote for me" which is closely backed up by the your my best
> mate and we get
> >on so of course it was easier to play with you and hence I
> vote for you.
>
> You have to be explicit about it in the house rules, and you
> should repeat
> on the voting forms:
> - no canvassing (or negative canvassing "Don't vote for
> Fred")
> - a secret vote
> - in fact no discussion of the voting within the team
> whatsoever
> - anybody breaks the above 3 principles, in no circumstances
> vote for him
>
> Most MEBBM players are decent and fair, and will abide by
> such guidelines
> if reminded of them.
>
>
> Laurence G. Tilley
>
> http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Home Selling? Try Us!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/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/
>
>

[Laurence G. Tilley]

At 20:08 17/09/2002, you wrote:
>Jason's note about some nations impacting more and hence more likely to be
>voted for is what I found in game 39 (not a big sample I admit but
>definitely noticable).

Again some voting guidelines would be needed. You can ask people to vote
for "the player who, given it's resources and characteristics, made the
best use of his nation" or you can ask them to vote for "the player who
made the best contribution to the team". Some of the chaps I know, work
hard on data gathering, mapping, suggesting moves, questioning strategy,
co-ordinating multi-national attacks, chaperoning newbies, wooing neutrals,
and error checking draft turn sheets - they deserve credit, and would get
my votes, and the nation they happen to be playing is of no relevance.

So a lot depends on what you ask for, and how you phrase it. "Best
Player", "Best Team Player" and "Best Played Nation" are all slightly
different things, sometimes the same chap would get all 3 accolades, but
not always.

Laurence G. Tilley

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

[Richard DEVEREUX]

While part of me really likes the voting idea, I think it does have some
drawbacks:

1. Will people vote? Disagreement on this.

2. Will people vote fairly? Probably yes, but their criteria may or may
not be the best.

3. Will this encourage overplay? By that, I mean right now everyone wins
and loses equally, also under Clint's system. With voting, "role
playing" (that is, not being a star) is discouraged: you won't get voted
for. Why not go out in a blaze of glory?

I'm also not clear the nations have an equal chance of being recognized.
Certain nations, by their position and power, have a better chance of
changing the game. I understand that spectacular play by other nations
could push votes their way, but I think we all agree that, given an
equal level of play by all players, certain nations will attract more
attention than others.

jason

RD: As far as voting for a member of your own team is concerned, you are voting for the best PLAYER not the most powerful nation, ie, the Eothraim could be down to 1 MT and a camp, but if he were the guy who pulled all the strings to bring about a team win, he should be the guy who gets the most votes rather than the Noldor, even tho they finished with the most pops and gold and all the top characters.

Providing you don't know who is playing which nation amongst the opposing team, there is no possibility of abuse that I can see - you vote for the DS nation that did you the most damage and whoever that player is, he gets the credit.

Richard.


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



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]