Middle Earth PBM Games
2nd February 2008, 01:06 PM
Okay I have gone through the messages so far about the proposed rating
system and will try to answer some of the questions and my thoughts (***)
below: (Note I have not covered very recent discussions below in the most
part).
My first question is exactly what are these ratings to be used for?
*** For fun, and also to get a rough feeling for the various strengths of
individual players and teams. I think it will also add to the excitement
of the game.
Just as a refresher, what would be the as of date of these ratings, meaning
do they just start with new games, do they attempt to pick up old games, or
games in progress?
*** We're not even sure that we want to implement this yet. Feedback has
been mixed with a small vocal minority wondering about the system at
all. I think that overall players are not a major fan of the Istari system
though as it has a strong relation to the Victory Points but some players
enjoy this aspect of the game and I would like to support them. I have yet
to make a decision about this as I would lots more feedback before coming
to a decision about what changes to make and what to add or remove from the
overall concept (if we use it all). We have records for the last couple of
years that are accurate. Before that reports and information is harder to
come by so we'd probably aim at having just the information from this
period (including current games).
What is the Istari system?
*** Istari - individual success, based on ability to place well at the end
of the game. This follows GSI's Victory Points system, rewarding those who
are not only on the winning team, but who have achieved their four goals
(on the 1st page).
Does this involve VCs, or just gold/armies/PCs/etc?
*** This would include VCs as well (but only for the Istari). We could aim
to have the original 4 only, without VCs, but they are not what normally
defines who wins the game. Although there are negative aspects to having
this we don't really have the right to change it and its how the game is
sometimes played.
I think this should be counted, possibly by counting drops (as
someone else suggested). Players should be punished for bailing on their
team when a nation still has life. Players should also be rewarded for
picking up difficult positions.
*** What do others think about this? We could come up with a system that
works with this.
> Any games which start with less than 20 positions will count for less
and so
> only earn 1/2 points. Each rating will also alter as time goes on to show a
Does that include games with 2 nations/player?
*** Not at present. Note nothing is written in stone (ie unchangeable) at
present all up for discussion. Other players have offered other systems
of scoring. (Mostly simpler to work out more like the Football where you
get 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw, 0 for a loss). [Note I use
the World wide name for Football meaning Soccer as it's more
internationally known]. I would like feedback on that if possible.
Dr Deep checking in with the ratings question. I am not in favor of ratings
as too much depends on the
team you inherit when you enlist yourself to a new game. You may not be
able to perform to your best
ability due to a multitude of reasons not related to the game. So, in all,
I think a ratings system is not
realistic to me. But I am sure there are those who will like the idea. Just
my two cents worth.
*** Certainly true. One of the motivating factors for creating this system
is that I am able to better balance games at game start. At present I just
have to guesstimate teams when I create a game. This should help.
I don't really understand why your rating would degrade 2%. Chess ratings
don't degrade.
*** We want to do this to show an active status of players. You might run
up a high total and then leave the game for 4 years, but still be in the
top slot. This will also reduce those embarassing losses that happen to
all of us from time to time.
It's not and GWC's sucked. One game back then I was the Corsairs in a
Grudge Game. I declared for Dark, destroyed SG and then sailed up to the
Noldo and was attacking them. The DS team thought I had too many Victory
Points and would get a GWC. So they convinced Harad to attack me to knock
my point total down. The game itself was pretty much over, the FP were
beaten. From that point on, I NEVER played a neutral again in a Grudge
game. I told GSI NEVER AGAIN. Now you want to bring all this crap back to
the game?
*** You are able to opt out of the scoring if you want. We're trying to
offer this as a service for players (ie an additional piece of fun in the
game) and to try and add some excitement to the game. No doubt this won't
suit everyone but for those that it does then they should have more fun,
and for the others I can see if having minimal or no impact on the way you
play the game. Only the Istari rating (of the 4/5 suggested ratings) has a
value which is related to VPs. Note players still play for the Victory
Conditions in the game as technically it is still a part of the game.
I've heard lots of this type of story, but always in reference to "the
past". The non-North American players claim that, because they never had
GWC's, they play more of a team oriented game. I've never seen anything
even remotely similar in my various games as a neutral
** We've not heard a lot of this but it has happened that some players
attack others to gain the VC or reduce their VPs. Game 71 it recently
happened so my opinion is that players will do it regardless of the
game. Note Grudge games are to be defined as no-Neutrals or at least that
is the what I propose to put to player opinion and debate.
I just wanted to let you know that I am in agreement with starting up the
players rating system. Even if it isn't perfect to start with it should get
better over time and it would add a bit of extra fun (not something to be
taken too seriously, some of the comments on the MEPBM board suggest some
people are taking it far too seriously already - we play the game because
we enjoy it and I don't think this will change that dramatically).
*** That's the intention and overall I agree with this sentiment. No doubt
to get a working system will need tweaking as time goes on.
If Richard's eyes "glazed over" when he read the mathematics of the
proposed player ratings system, mine positively popped.
*** You don't need to do the maths. If you win you get points (45 + around
20ish for the Valar rating and similar quantities for the others) and if
you lose you lose a similar amount of points. I use the present Ratings of
players partially to equalise teams at game start, and to use as a factor
in the determination of points allocated. (If you beat a better team/more
players ie more highly rated than yours you deserve more points being the
simple policy behind it).
We currently have the old VC points inherent to the software, which are
almost universally disliked.
*** Yes my around 75%+ but I would estimate that the other 25%- like it or
are tolerant of it.
The Valar and Maia ratings actually do reward team players a LOT more than
the old VC point system. In fact, it seems that the only people who should
be overly worried about the new ratings systems would be players like those
you mentioned.
*** Yes that's one of the points we want to address and encourage as we
think it makes a better (ie more enjoyable) game. Emphasising other
aspects of the game over the negative of others is what we hope to achieve
here.
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.
*** We'd like to revitalise the flagging World Championships either in the
same format or in another format. Lots of debate on this one to organise
yet especially with those actually playing in the WCs. I have been
thinking of using the Ainur rating as the new Team
Championships. Basically Ben's team has effectively won the game their
only challenge left is the Aussies.
Any ratings system has got to weight nations somehow - obviously someone
who does well as the Woodmen deserves more points than a player who wins
with the Noldo on turn 16. Comparing Woodmen against Noldo or Dark Lts
players is rather unfair - nations need to be compared with performances of
other players running the same nation.
*** This is an interesting idea. Rating them on VPs is one
method relative to how others have played that particular nation. More
complex solutions to this are possible with ratings on various aspects of
their play as that nation but I don't see how we can easily do this without
a lot of player support.
The only ratings that I would truely be interested in, would be a private
rating communicated at end of game that measured your performance vs the
average of your position before you. So, I would be interested to know that
as NG I eliminated 25000HI and 4 MTs, when the average was 20000 and the
best was 35000, for example. This just as a gentle way of helping me gauge
my performance....
*** Very hard to arrange but possible if players wanted it. We're
presently working on aspects of the program at our end and might consider
being able to take out lots of the information from this. (Bit of a
pipe-dream at present but we've managed to pull off a lot more of those so
far than expected). The other way would be for players to tally this
up. PCs (captured/created), armies (destroyed/created), characters (
kill/kidnaps/challenges), money gifted/received, what other factors for
actual game mechanics? Playerwise there would be other factors to involve,
team-manship, hard work on collating information, diplomacy, helping out
with turns that sort of thing might be factors to involve as well.
So in closing there is lot of debat on the subject which is what I was
hoping for. We're happy for this to continue until I can get a feel for
what is the correct course of action to take (even if that is no-action).
Thanks for all the hard work you have put in so far.
Clint
system and will try to answer some of the questions and my thoughts (***)
below: (Note I have not covered very recent discussions below in the most
part).
My first question is exactly what are these ratings to be used for?
*** For fun, and also to get a rough feeling for the various strengths of
individual players and teams. I think it will also add to the excitement
of the game.
Just as a refresher, what would be the as of date of these ratings, meaning
do they just start with new games, do they attempt to pick up old games, or
games in progress?
*** We're not even sure that we want to implement this yet. Feedback has
been mixed with a small vocal minority wondering about the system at
all. I think that overall players are not a major fan of the Istari system
though as it has a strong relation to the Victory Points but some players
enjoy this aspect of the game and I would like to support them. I have yet
to make a decision about this as I would lots more feedback before coming
to a decision about what changes to make and what to add or remove from the
overall concept (if we use it all). We have records for the last couple of
years that are accurate. Before that reports and information is harder to
come by so we'd probably aim at having just the information from this
period (including current games).
What is the Istari system?
*** Istari - individual success, based on ability to place well at the end
of the game. This follows GSI's Victory Points system, rewarding those who
are not only on the winning team, but who have achieved their four goals
(on the 1st page).
Does this involve VCs, or just gold/armies/PCs/etc?
*** This would include VCs as well (but only for the Istari). We could aim
to have the original 4 only, without VCs, but they are not what normally
defines who wins the game. Although there are negative aspects to having
this we don't really have the right to change it and its how the game is
sometimes played.
I think this should be counted, possibly by counting drops (as
someone else suggested). Players should be punished for bailing on their
team when a nation still has life. Players should also be rewarded for
picking up difficult positions.
*** What do others think about this? We could come up with a system that
works with this.
> Any games which start with less than 20 positions will count for less
and so
> only earn 1/2 points. Each rating will also alter as time goes on to show a
Does that include games with 2 nations/player?
*** Not at present. Note nothing is written in stone (ie unchangeable) at
present all up for discussion. Other players have offered other systems
of scoring. (Mostly simpler to work out more like the Football where you
get 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw, 0 for a loss). [Note I use
the World wide name for Football meaning Soccer as it's more
internationally known]. I would like feedback on that if possible.
Dr Deep checking in with the ratings question. I am not in favor of ratings
as too much depends on the
team you inherit when you enlist yourself to a new game. You may not be
able to perform to your best
ability due to a multitude of reasons not related to the game. So, in all,
I think a ratings system is not
realistic to me. But I am sure there are those who will like the idea. Just
my two cents worth.
*** Certainly true. One of the motivating factors for creating this system
is that I am able to better balance games at game start. At present I just
have to guesstimate teams when I create a game. This should help.
I don't really understand why your rating would degrade 2%. Chess ratings
don't degrade.
*** We want to do this to show an active status of players. You might run
up a high total and then leave the game for 4 years, but still be in the
top slot. This will also reduce those embarassing losses that happen to
all of us from time to time.
It's not and GWC's sucked. One game back then I was the Corsairs in a
Grudge Game. I declared for Dark, destroyed SG and then sailed up to the
Noldo and was attacking them. The DS team thought I had too many Victory
Points and would get a GWC. So they convinced Harad to attack me to knock
my point total down. The game itself was pretty much over, the FP were
beaten. From that point on, I NEVER played a neutral again in a Grudge
game. I told GSI NEVER AGAIN. Now you want to bring all this crap back to
the game?
*** You are able to opt out of the scoring if you want. We're trying to
offer this as a service for players (ie an additional piece of fun in the
game) and to try and add some excitement to the game. No doubt this won't
suit everyone but for those that it does then they should have more fun,
and for the others I can see if having minimal or no impact on the way you
play the game. Only the Istari rating (of the 4/5 suggested ratings) has a
value which is related to VPs. Note players still play for the Victory
Conditions in the game as technically it is still a part of the game.
I've heard lots of this type of story, but always in reference to "the
past". The non-North American players claim that, because they never had
GWC's, they play more of a team oriented game. I've never seen anything
even remotely similar in my various games as a neutral
** We've not heard a lot of this but it has happened that some players
attack others to gain the VC or reduce their VPs. Game 71 it recently
happened so my opinion is that players will do it regardless of the
game. Note Grudge games are to be defined as no-Neutrals or at least that
is the what I propose to put to player opinion and debate.
I just wanted to let you know that I am in agreement with starting up the
players rating system. Even if it isn't perfect to start with it should get
better over time and it would add a bit of extra fun (not something to be
taken too seriously, some of the comments on the MEPBM board suggest some
people are taking it far too seriously already - we play the game because
we enjoy it and I don't think this will change that dramatically).
*** That's the intention and overall I agree with this sentiment. No doubt
to get a working system will need tweaking as time goes on.
If Richard's eyes "glazed over" when he read the mathematics of the
proposed player ratings system, mine positively popped.
*** You don't need to do the maths. If you win you get points (45 + around
20ish for the Valar rating and similar quantities for the others) and if
you lose you lose a similar amount of points. I use the present Ratings of
players partially to equalise teams at game start, and to use as a factor
in the determination of points allocated. (If you beat a better team/more
players ie more highly rated than yours you deserve more points being the
simple policy behind it).
We currently have the old VC points inherent to the software, which are
almost universally disliked.
*** Yes my around 75%+ but I would estimate that the other 25%- like it or
are tolerant of it.
The Valar and Maia ratings actually do reward team players a LOT more than
the old VC point system. In fact, it seems that the only people who should
be overly worried about the new ratings systems would be players like those
you mentioned.
*** Yes that's one of the points we want to address and encourage as we
think it makes a better (ie more enjoyable) game. Emphasising other
aspects of the game over the negative of others is what we hope to achieve
here.
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.
*** We'd like to revitalise the flagging World Championships either in the
same format or in another format. Lots of debate on this one to organise
yet especially with those actually playing in the WCs. I have been
thinking of using the Ainur rating as the new Team
Championships. Basically Ben's team has effectively won the game their
only challenge left is the Aussies.
Any ratings system has got to weight nations somehow - obviously someone
who does well as the Woodmen deserves more points than a player who wins
with the Noldo on turn 16. Comparing Woodmen against Noldo or Dark Lts
players is rather unfair - nations need to be compared with performances of
other players running the same nation.
*** This is an interesting idea. Rating them on VPs is one
method relative to how others have played that particular nation. More
complex solutions to this are possible with ratings on various aspects of
their play as that nation but I don't see how we can easily do this without
a lot of player support.
The only ratings that I would truely be interested in, would be a private
rating communicated at end of game that measured your performance vs the
average of your position before you. So, I would be interested to know that
as NG I eliminated 25000HI and 4 MTs, when the average was 20000 and the
best was 35000, for example. This just as a gentle way of helping me gauge
my performance....
*** Very hard to arrange but possible if players wanted it. We're
presently working on aspects of the program at our end and might consider
being able to take out lots of the information from this. (Bit of a
pipe-dream at present but we've managed to pull off a lot more of those so
far than expected). The other way would be for players to tally this
up. PCs (captured/created), armies (destroyed/created), characters (
kill/kidnaps/challenges), money gifted/received, what other factors for
actual game mechanics? Playerwise there would be other factors to involve,
team-manship, hard work on collating information, diplomacy, helping out
with turns that sort of thing might be factors to involve as well.
So in closing there is lot of debat on the subject which is what I was
hoping for. We're happy for this to continue until I can get a feel for
what is the correct course of action to take (even if that is no-action).
Thanks for all the hard work you have put in so far.
Clint