Middle Earth PBM Games
2nd February 2008, 01:06 PM
We've put this in as a factor for the Grudge games where they are very
strongly team games. (Ie if you lose nations you score less points) But
for the individual games I did not want to do that.
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
etc
Can others add to this what they might think appropriate and maybe a short
description of what each means? As this is purely a subjective opinion
from player's perspective of player's ability and value to a team as
compared with the subjective scores of winning in other ways I would want
to stress that aspect with a minor modification due to win/loss/draw in the
equation. But it's up for debate and it would be cool if the players could
come up with an equation for this.
Clint
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
>
>
strongly team games. (Ie if you lose nations you score less points) But
for the individual games I did not want to do that.
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
etc
Can others add to this what they might think appropriate and maybe a short
description of what each means? As this is purely a subjective opinion
from player's perspective of player's ability and value to a team as
compared with the subjective scores of winning in other ways I would want
to stress that aspect with a minor modification due to win/loss/draw in the
equation. But it's up for debate and it would be cool if the players could
come up with an equation for this.
Clint
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
>
>