Middle Earth PBM Games
2nd February 2008, 01:06 PM
>Problem 1 - Neutrals get together to declare for quick and
>easy victory, thus rating increase.
>
>A- The increase would be minimal due to much higher total
>winning team rating, might even be negative!
>B- Player complaints and possible GM sanctions against
>collusion.
>C- I contend the opposite will occur! How many neutrals right
>now declare out of a sense of Game Balance? Not just a motivation
>for a longer and more interesting game, but now it can net you
>a greater increase in rating points! How many allies say:
>"Okay, we have 1 NW, 1 South and the Easterlings, let's burn
>the others because lopsided games are no fun". Happens all
>the time. Ratings will increase those types of decisions, not
>decrease them.
** I think we'd have to see what impact this has as I don't think any of us
have a good idea of what is going on. What's the solution to the above?
>Problem 2 - Eliminated/Dropped Allegiance nations count.
>
>Many parallels to professional competitive endeavors have been
>used to support the desire to "score" the players, but here,
>I've only seen "fairness" invoked to support rewarding inactive
>allegiance nations. (??)
>
>The Eothraim who plays his butt off but finally succombs to
>his many wounds is not the same as the many times SS'd Dwarf
>who finally disappears via drop is not the same as the
>inexperienced Cardolan who not only recruits 1700 HI a turn,
>but also buys them steel, before succombing to his self-
>inflicted wounds.
>
>Yet, they're all treated "equally"? If this team wins, many
>will contend the Eo deserved the increase...but the Cardy
>players was at least "trying" too, right? If this team loses,
>the Eo player loses just as many rating points as the Dwarf and
>Cardy players (who may very well have been responsible for the
>loss??). How is this "fair"?
>
>A- I contend that it is NOT fair. The last players of inactive
>or eliminated nations should neither count towards the score,
>nor have their own rating affected.
>
>This is a TEAM rating - a good team will find a way to keep their
>players in it. Why couldn't the Eo find a back-up? Unwilling
>to communicate ("Oh well guys, I'm done! It was fun slugging it
>out, wow! See ya around!")..??? Or, why didn't the Team
>make sure the crucial 949 had the Eo emissary's name spelled
>correctly? Why didn't the Team find a replacement for the
>Dwarf when he disappeared? Or send in back-up orders in case
>of SS's? Why didn't the Team find a gentle way to teach
>Cardolan ME Economics 101?
>
>If, for whatever reason, this team wins, including these nations
>in the calculation will reduce the rating change for the players
>who were able to end the game, decreasing the amount of gain
>they otherwise would receive - that's not "fair" either!
>
*** With the Ainur rating there is a relative number of nations which
affects your score as well. Would you sanction having this type in the
other ratings as well? That would certainly have an impact encouraging
players to keep team-mates in.
>Can you tell I really like this rating? It supports better
>team play and increases the number of stand-by's picked up.
>Better, longer games.
Clint
>easy victory, thus rating increase.
>
>A- The increase would be minimal due to much higher total
>winning team rating, might even be negative!
>B- Player complaints and possible GM sanctions against
>collusion.
>C- I contend the opposite will occur! How many neutrals right
>now declare out of a sense of Game Balance? Not just a motivation
>for a longer and more interesting game, but now it can net you
>a greater increase in rating points! How many allies say:
>"Okay, we have 1 NW, 1 South and the Easterlings, let's burn
>the others because lopsided games are no fun". Happens all
>the time. Ratings will increase those types of decisions, not
>decrease them.
** I think we'd have to see what impact this has as I don't think any of us
have a good idea of what is going on. What's the solution to the above?
>Problem 2 - Eliminated/Dropped Allegiance nations count.
>
>Many parallels to professional competitive endeavors have been
>used to support the desire to "score" the players, but here,
>I've only seen "fairness" invoked to support rewarding inactive
>allegiance nations. (??)
>
>The Eothraim who plays his butt off but finally succombs to
>his many wounds is not the same as the many times SS'd Dwarf
>who finally disappears via drop is not the same as the
>inexperienced Cardolan who not only recruits 1700 HI a turn,
>but also buys them steel, before succombing to his self-
>inflicted wounds.
>
>Yet, they're all treated "equally"? If this team wins, many
>will contend the Eo deserved the increase...but the Cardy
>players was at least "trying" too, right? If this team loses,
>the Eo player loses just as many rating points as the Dwarf and
>Cardy players (who may very well have been responsible for the
>loss??). How is this "fair"?
>
>A- I contend that it is NOT fair. The last players of inactive
>or eliminated nations should neither count towards the score,
>nor have their own rating affected.
>
>This is a TEAM rating - a good team will find a way to keep their
>players in it. Why couldn't the Eo find a back-up? Unwilling
>to communicate ("Oh well guys, I'm done! It was fun slugging it
>out, wow! See ya around!")..??? Or, why didn't the Team
>make sure the crucial 949 had the Eo emissary's name spelled
>correctly? Why didn't the Team find a replacement for the
>Dwarf when he disappeared? Or send in back-up orders in case
>of SS's? Why didn't the Team find a gentle way to teach
>Cardolan ME Economics 101?
>
>If, for whatever reason, this team wins, including these nations
>in the calculation will reduce the rating change for the players
>who were able to end the game, decreasing the amount of gain
>they otherwise would receive - that's not "fair" either!
>
*** With the Ainur rating there is a relative number of nations which
affects your score as well. Would you sanction having this type in the
other ratings as well? That would certainly have an impact encouraging
players to keep team-mates in.
>Can you tell I really like this rating? It supports better
>team play and increases the number of stand-by's picked up.
>Better, longer games.
Clint