Urzahil
2nd February 2008, 01:06 PM
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.
<<I would like to see this, but I wonder how it could be achieved. It
would almost have to have a certain amount of subjectivity to it. How do
you determine when a dropped nation's position was legitimately
hopeless, or whether it was still viable? Would there be specific
criteria or just an opinion?>>
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.
<<One thing I hadn't noticed in the math originally is that someone with
a rating of less than 1500 would slowly have their rating increased by
2% per month. Is this true, or would the degradation only be downward.
If "degradation" works both ways, then I like the concept, as I envision
myself in the "under 1500" club.>>
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 quickest and easiest way is to use straight VPs. While I've never
been a fan of VPs, it has been because of the inequities between
nations. Using them to compare a single nation's performance to the same
nation's overall average performance in many games seems reasonable.
(Can anyone point out problems I don't see with this?)
Mike Mulka
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.
<<I would like to see this, but I wonder how it could be achieved. It
would almost have to have a certain amount of subjectivity to it. How do
you determine when a dropped nation's position was legitimately
hopeless, or whether it was still viable? Would there be specific
criteria or just an opinion?>>
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.
<<One thing I hadn't noticed in the math originally is that someone with
a rating of less than 1500 would slowly have their rating increased by
2% per month. Is this true, or would the degradation only be downward.
If "degradation" works both ways, then I like the concept, as I envision
myself in the "under 1500" club.>>
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 quickest and easiest way is to use straight VPs. While I've never
been a fan of VPs, it has been because of the inequities between
nations. Using them to compare a single nation's performance to the same
nation's overall average performance in many games seems reasonable.
(Can anyone point out problems I don't see with this?)
Mike Mulka