Re: [mepbmlist] Ratings

[corsairs game 101]

>From: Middle Earth PBM Games <me@...>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Subject: [mepbmlist] Ratings
>Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:46:09 +0100
>
> >Why!?!?!?!?!?!?!
>
>*** My reasoning is that I feel that there is a favourable response to the
>Rating system, or that the damage done, despite certain player's
>reservations, is going to be minimal, and the potential gain outways that.

So, were back to it being a done deal. What a load of crap. We want
responses, and long as they are positive, and even if they aren't, we'll
just pretend they are. Whatever. And the rate hike at the same time
Autotragic was released wasn't punishment to those that chose not to use it.
Whatever.


>
>I want and need none of that!
>
>*** I understand that certain players do not want it. They can opt out.

How do we opt out of being in ANY games with anyone that hasn't opted out of
the list? Only by ensuring that no one in the game cares about ranking, do
we have a reasonable hope of being in a game with no one that is out to
exploit the system.

>I
>think that the impact on opting in players' play will be minimal. I am
>aware that this is at odds with some players' opinions here and have taken
>that into account.

You took it in to account how? By delaying the imposition of the system by
a few months in hopes the angry response would die down? As far as I can
see, you've always planned on imposing an unwanted system on the players,
and the only account of the opposition you've taken is delaying the torture.


>>>what is very much open is the form that these ratings will take.
>
>*** Yes - I think I have enough feedback for this now. I need to free up
>some spare time and energy to work this into an appropriate system
>though. The information on end of game has now nearly been collated
>(should be finished this week) so I need to work on the next step of
>getting a system finalised.

No system!!!!!


> I'm trying to opt-out of
> >this list being created. My name not being on the list will not change
>the
> >behavior of the players who want to scam the system. It is this negative
> >motivation that I'm trying to avoid.
>
>*** I think that this will be minimal. If it does have a drastic impact
>then we can evaluate it at that point.

Evaluate it? Is that looking at the bottom line to see if the cunning
players are spending more money, then trying to figure out how to modify the
system to make them spend even more?

Come clean. Why do you want to impose this system?


> >The only solution that deos not alter behavior away from "fun play" is to
> >have no system.
>
>*** I think that that in effect would be detrimental to the long term
>success of the game for the reasons given earlier. The game can do with
>being modernised and I think this will certainly help here and if not we
>can always scrap it or come up with a different solution.
>
>Clint

Again, no ranking system is dismissed out of hand. Note you didn't say the
system would be dropped totally. It could be changed or a different
solution imposed on unwanting players. Tell me again how this wasn't a done
deal from the beginning?

Open dialog and taking opinions into account? Male cow dung!

Darrell Shimel

[corsairs game 101]

>A discussion on the merits of the 4 quick 10 turn wins vs 40 turns 1 game
>win might be relevant. How would you advise that that be taken into
>account in the equations?

SIMPLE. HAVE NO EQUATIONS. Have no highly flawed ranking system that can
be expoilted by a few, to the detrement to the many.

>From experience most games end under a year
>nowadays. So the 40 turn game is an aberration. The 4 wins on turn 10 is
>a much bigger aberration of game slews. To have played in 4 games where
>you lose on turn 10 (or similar) would be enough of incentive for players
>to give up the ghost of playing as it is I think.... :-)

Which is what I believe will happen if a ranking system is imposed. Cunning
players will join as neutrals, pile on one side, get a quick victory, then
move on to the next oppertunity to increase their rankings.

Lots of little victories will be far more rewarding to the rankings, than
longer, balanced games, with a fair chance of losing.


Darrell Shimel

[corsairs game 101]

> >I believe ranking will have no positive effects on game play, but many
> >negative effects on game play, and therefore, NO RANKING system should be
> >implimented at all. NOW, agree or disagree with that!
>
>*** I personally and from a business perspective disagree but will keep
>your points in mind. I don't mind disagreeing it's often very healthy.
>
>Clint

"from a business perspective"

Careful Clint. You're getting very close to admitting what I've suspected
from the start. That the rankings were intentionally designed to encourage
people to play more games and spend more money. What next? I can buy an
extra 100 points to my ranking for $20?

The rankings won't reflect who is the best player, but are likely to favor
those that spend the most money. A couple of systems reward number of games
won. Not winning %, but won minus lost, which rewards playing more games.
Another system rewards turns played = money spent. Even the proposed voting
systems rewards number of games played as each game is another chance to get
votes.

Why not just cut the crap and get the the heart of the matter. Create the
rankings as a list of who spends the most money with ME Games.

Darrell Shimel

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

> > >Why!?!?!?!?!?!?!
> >
> >*** My reasoning is that I feel that there is a favourable response to the
> >Rating system, or that the damage done, despite certain player's
> >reservations, is going to be minimal, and the potential gain outways that.
>
>So, were back to it being a done deal.


*** No - I have listened to the arguments and discussion here and feel that
it is appropriate to continue. Isn't that the format you wanted me to
follow? Listen and take that into account? Sorry that we have not been
able to side with your desire here.

> >I
> >think that the impact on opting in players' play will be minimal. I am
> >aware that this is at odds with some players' opinions here and have taken
> >that into account.
>
>You took it in to account how? By delaying the imposition of the system by
>a few months in hopes the angry response would die down? As far as I can
>see, you've always planned on imposing an unwanted system on the players,
>and the only account of the opposition you've taken is delaying the torture.

*** No I have been through this and I don't want to discuss it again. If I
felt that player opinion was overtly negative then I would not do it. I
don't feel that is the case. Your large number of postings only reflect
your opinion and although vocal are only one opinion. I could well be
wrong and this be a big flop but I strongly think it isn't going to be
anywhere near as bad as you feel it is. As an example I see that you are
playing 2 positions in one game, a ruling that we made based on what I felt
to be an appropriate desire of players and for the good of the game.

>*** I think that this will be minimal. If it does have a drastic impact
> >then we can evaluate it at that point.
>
>Evaluate it? Is that looking at the bottom line to see if the cunning
>players are spending more money, then trying to figure out how to modify the
>system to make them spend even more?
>
>Come clean. Why do you want to impose this system?

*** I have come clean. Short answer: I think it will improve the
game. Improving the game means more players as they enjoy the game more
and play more. Is there something wrong with that? I also am a player and
love the game so my enjoyment will be improved by it as well. Ie happier
people better world. These are some of the reasons... the others I have
gone into before.

>Again, no ranking system is dismissed out of hand.

*** Doesn't dismissed out of hand mean no discussion, no dialogue, no
feedback etc. Um your statement is incorrect.

> Note you didn't say the
>system would be dropped totally.

*** It certainly can be - but I want to test it first before dismissing it.

>It could be changed or a different
>solution imposed on unwanting players. Tell me again how this wasn't a done
>deal from the beginning?

*** I never said I don't want to implement it. I asked for feedback and
took that into account. End of story.

>Open dialog and taking opinions into account? Male cow dung!

*** As far as I am aware I intend to bring your opinion of win/loss/games %
into the ratings system. Ie taking your opinion into account. I have also
taken your opinion as a resounding No to the whole project. If there were
more I would certainly consider dropping it.

Clint

[Gavin Wynford-Jones]

Ye gods, fifty replies about ratings today and counting...

Gavin

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

> > >I believe ranking will have no positive effects on game play, but many
> > >negative effects on game play, and therefore, NO RANKING system should be
> > >implimented at all. NOW, agree or disagree with that!
> >
> >*** I personally and from a business perspective disagree but will keep
> >your points in mind. I don't mind disagreeing it's often very healthy.
>
>"from a business perspective"
>
>Careful Clint. You're getting very close to admitting what I've suspected
>from the start. That the rankings were intentionally designed to encourage
>people to play more games and spend more money. What next? I can buy an
>extra 100 points to my ranking for $20?

*** No - Ranking systems are for enjoyment and possibly as a hint to a
strength of a team enabling me to organise more even games at game
start. I need some way of judging this and at present it uses my
experience to do so. I think both AM and the PRS make a better game. AM
will help players to run turns, make the game simpler to play and reduce
errors and make the game more enjoyable. Simple. Your call to perceive it
any way you want. If I said it's black and you perceive it as being a
different colour then we have no common ground to debate. We can't MAKE
you play more - that's upto you. If you enjoy the game and then play more
because it is more enjoyable (rating systems et al, mapmaker, ease of
inputting etc) and then decide to play more what's wrong with that? Well I
tell people outside of the PBM world what I do for a living they are
totally amazed. Usually goes something like "What do you do for a
living?" A: "I moderate an Internet game based on LoTR - have you read the
book?" .... "You MAKE money doing that?!" add various levels of amazed
tone... :-) Cue sigh and polite smile.. :-)

You've commented that you haven't used AM so how do you know if it is a bad
thing without trying it? You have had lots of players comment that it is
useful and been very praiseworthy. I have given some statistics to back up
my comment.

>Why not just cut the crap and get the the heart of the matter. Create the
>rankings as a list of who spends the most money with ME Games.

*** Please don't swear. It turns it from a debate and an exchange of views
into a shouting match. I have given my reasons why I think it a good idea
- you seem to be hung up on us making money, whatever level that is. I
don't do it to argue with players constantly and re-iterating the same
point, and I try to be as honest in my business dealings as is
possible. End of that particular story. I know the nature of the PBM
beast is that I sometimes have to cross swords with players, which I find
distasteful, but I think that we are just going over old ground here.

Clint

[corsairs game 101]

>You've commented that you haven't used AM so how do you know if it is a bad
>thing without trying it? You have had lots of players comment that it is
>useful and been very praiseworthy. I have given some statistics to back up
>my comment.

I never said that I know it is bad or good. I was so appalled at the way it
was presented, I'll never use it. It may be the best thing ever. I'll
never know.

>I have given my reasons why I think it a good idea
>- you seem to be hung up on us making money,

I'm not at all hung up on money. The way the system is designed, it does
reward those that spend the most. That is just ONE of many reasons I find
the system truely distasteful.

You keep saying that you think it will make the game more fun. I don't get
how. I've yet to hear anyone agree that it will be fun to be in a game
where the neutrals all pick sides based on how qucikly it will end the game
so they can get their ranking points and move on to the next game. I have
yet to hear anyone say how it will be fun when players start refusing games
against equal opponents because they don't want to risk a loss that would
drop their ranking. I have yet to hear anyone say how it will be fun to be
attacked by your teammates becasue they want to get you to quit before the
game ends so that they can move ahead of you in the rankings.

You keep saying it will be more fun, but all I can see is how it will be
less fun. Explain to me how any given turn will be more fun when I'm
plotting it based on how I can maximize my points, screw my team mates, but
still win the game. I've been there and done that. It was far LESS fun.

What is my point? Well, you claim you keep giving me your reasons. in
reality, all your doing is making a statement that supports what you are
going to do. I've yet to see reasons that support the statement. Just how
will a ranking system that doesn't truely reflect how good a player someone
is, add any enjoyment to the game?

Darrell

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

> >You've commented that you haven't used AM so how do you know if it is a bad
> >thing without trying it? You have had lots of players comment that it is
> >useful and been very praiseworthy. I have given some statistics to back up
> >my comment.
>
>I never said that I know it is bad or good. I was so appalled at the way it
>was presented, I'll never use it. It may be the best thing ever. I'll
>never know.

** Seriously - that's a shame. You might like it and enjoy the game more
because of it. I do.

>You keep saying that you think it will make the game more fun. I don't get
>how. I've yet to hear anyone agree that it will be fun to be in a game
>where the neutrals all pick sides based on how qucikly it will end the game
>so they can get their ranking points and move on to the next game. I have
>yet to hear anyone say how it will be fun when players start refusing games
>against equal opponents because they don't want to risk a loss that would
>drop their ranking. I have yet to hear anyone say how it will be fun to be
>attacked by your teammates becasue they want to get you to quit before the
>game ends so that they can move ahead of you in the rankings.

** All scenarios where fun would be lessened but I have answered this.

>What is my point? Well, you claim you keep giving me your reasons. in
>reality, all your doing is making a statement that supports what you are
>going to do.

** That's my reasons - that's what you have asked me for! If I did things
which were against my reasons then that would be ridiculous. I think it
would be good for x,y,z,u,v etc.

> I've yet to see reasons that support the statement. Just how
>will a ranking system that doesn't truely reflect how good a player someone
>is, add any enjoyment to the game?

** Been here before. I think having answered nearly 100 of your emails here
that I cannot do more.

Clint

[dilipdavid@...]

corsairs101@... writes:

> Just how will a ranking system that doesn't truely reflect how good a player
>


It will add to the game as a whole because MEPBM currently lacks any ranking
system. If you "know" that the top-ranked players are the under-handed sort
that you would rather not play with, then the ranking system has helped you
-- now you know who to stay away from. If I "know" that the mid-range
players are the sort of team players I want to play with then the ranking
system has similarly helped me.

Currently, those who have played the game for a while have an idea of who
they like/dislike playing with -- the newbies are left to flounder (most
likely with the "underhanded crowd"). With a ranking system, newbies are
liklier to meet other newbs and players who aren't obsessed with amassing the
highest score, theoretically improving their experience and preventing drops.

- Dilip




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Middle Earth Games]

> >You keep saying it will be more fun, but all I can see is how it will be
> >less fun. Explain to me how any given turn will be more fun when I'm
> >plotting it based on how I can maximize my points, screw my team mates,
but
> >still win the game. I've been there and done that. It was far LESS fun.
>
> Hi,
>
> I can think of two ways that the ratings create more fun, both based on
the
> way that they help create a balanced game. No-one enjoys seeing Manchester
> United beating up the Harlequin Games second Eleven, most people prefer
> seeing evenly matched teams battle.
>
> a.)
>
> The Valar rating gives you less points reward if you win a game with a
> 'better' side. Either a side full of good players, or a side with lots of
> neutrals.
>
> If you win a game with 14 nations beating 11, you earn just about 0 VPs
>
> If you win a game with 15 nations beating 10, you *lose* VPs
>
> If you win a game with 11 brilliant players beating 14 new players, you'll
> earn a moderate amount of points.
>
> If you win a game with 11 new players beating 14 brilliant players, you'll
> earn a lot of VPs!
>
> I think that will help prevent lanslide games where all the neutrals end
up
> on one side.
>
> b.)
>
> I also think that Clint can balance the teams in games by comparing the
> player's ratings. That will lead to more fun.
>
> Sam
>

[corsairs game 101]

>The Valar rating gives you less points reward if you win a game with a
>'better' side. Either a side full of good players, or a side with lots of
>neutrals.

But under the original proposal, a newbie has the same ranking as an
expereince player that is 2 of 4 vs. other equally skilled opposition. A
group of newbies could stomp another group of newbies in their first game,
and suddnely be more skilled that team of 7-year veterans that went 2 of 4
against another team of veterans.

What the system really encourages is lots of little victories against weaker
opponents. By dominating a weaker team, your sure of getting at least a
small boost. By playing an equally matched team, you are 50-50 of getting a
boost or an equally sized drop.

>If you win a game with 14 nations beating 11, you earn just about 0 VPs
>
>If you win a game with 15 nations beating 10, you *lose* VPs
>
>If you win a game with 11 brilliant players beating 14 new players, you'll
>earn a moderate amount of points.
>
>If you win a game with 11 new players beating 14 brilliant players, you'll
>earn a lot of VPs!

Only if those "brilliant players" have been going around stomping newbies.
If they have won half their games against equal opponents, they have the
same ranking (1500) as those newbies.


>b.)
>
>I also think that Clint can balance the teams in games by comparing the
>player's ratings. That will lead to more fun.

Assumes the rankins are meaningfull beyond who was best at finding ways to
scam the system for max points.

I truely doubt they will be.

Darrell

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

>
>See just how complicated it is. I wasn't critiqueing their suggestion. I
>was pointing out a flaw in in a suggested change. Another player suggested
>that win % be divided by number of drops to get a Nazgul rating. I felt
>this was very bad, as, 2 drops would prevent you from EVER being above 50%.
>(100% win / 2 drops = 50 rating)

*** As this was your suggestion Darrell how should it be presented? What
equations should I use? Note all ratings are factored by the 98% rule (on
page one of the ratings).

but find
>themselves attacked by allies late in a game because those "allies" suddenly
>care about the VC thing again.


*** No VCs here - I have removed them.

If it is to judge the experience and skill of players to assist in creating
>gamse against equal opposition, than ANYTHING other than "Games played in,
>Games won, Win %, Games Dropped" is overkill.


Can you show me how to present that please? Off list if you want to
discuss it so that I can come up with a final product?

Thanks

Clint

[corsairs game 101]

>*** As this was your suggestion Darrell how should it be presented? What
>equations should I use? Note all ratings are factored by the 98% rule (on
>page one of the ratings).

I like your suggested "Games Won/Games Played In".

If it is determined that drops want to be punished more harshley than
losses, it could be "Games Won/(Games Played In + drops)". Notice that
drops would already be counted in the "Games Played" so adding them in a
second time would have the effect of making them count twice as much as a
loss played to the end.

I'm fine with either.

I would like to see how you propose applying the win% to the 98% rule.

>
>but find
> >themselves attacked by allies late in a game because those "allies"
>suddenly
> >care about the VC thing again.
>
>*** No VCs here - I have removed them.

WHA? Did I miss something? Very cool!

So, now we have:
Win %
Voting
Games won - Games lost (with statistical analysis as to player strength)
Grudge Team win - loss (ugly numbers)
and finally The XP like one where it is a factor of turns played times
teammates' ratings.

Glad to see VPs go. Only a couple more to remove and this won't be too bad.

Darrell

[Brad Brunet]

--- corsairs game 101 <corsairs101@...> wrote:
> >*** No VCs here - I have removed them.
>
> WHA? Did I miss something? Very cool!

Many players have been telling you, over and over again,
that VC's are gone. Similarly, the list has heard many
reasons FOR the ratings and have heard many different
interpretations of what effects the ratings will have on
the game overall... You have missed much, it seems.

And please understand the difference between VC's and VP's.
P is for Points and C is for Conditions. Very different
beast - one is still included in the Istari rating.

Brad

[corsairs game 101]

>Many players have been telling you, over and over again,
>that VC's are gone. Similarly, the list has heard many
>reasons FOR the ratings and have heard many different
>interpretations of what effects the ratings will have on
>the game overall... You have missed much, it seems.
>
>And please understand the difference between VC's and VP's.
>P is for Points and C is for Conditions. Very different
>beast - one is still included in the Istari rating.
>
>Brad

I humbly admit I was saying VC when I meant VP. Please forgive. Yes I did
notice that Victory Points would not be modified by Victory COnditions. I'm
sorry, when I saw that they had eliminated VCs, I thught VPs and jumped for
joy far too soon.

I do have to flattly disagree with one point you make.

"Similarly, the list has heard many reasons FOR the ratings"

I've heard 2. 2 is a long way from many. The 2 I hear are "more fun" and
"easier to balance games". As for more fun, I keep asking HOW will this be
more fun, and as you have done, keep being told that I've already been
answered. Thank you for again answering "you've already been told" which
just proves that it is the only answer I get. You strengthen my point.
Thanks!

NOW, if someone would like to prove that I have been told, instead of
proving that I'm only being told that I've already been told, PLEASE tell me
HOW this will make the game more fun? How will people changing thier style
of play to maximize their points scored in some ranking system that has no
hope of determining who is the better player, make the game more fun than
just playing for fun? I turely, truely, truely believe I've not been told,
and turely, truely, truely do want an answer other than "It will be more
fun" or "you've already been told HOW it will be more fun".

I'm not going to shut up and go away.

Darrell Shimel

[Brad Brunet]

--- corsairs game 101 <corsairs101@...> wrote:

> I thught VPs and jumped for joy far too soon.

So since eliminating them is a "good thing", but they
haven't, then what you're saying, by extention, is what's
been said all along, that nothing is really Changing as
such - the game is simply being Added To (another reason
to have them - keep up with other "rated" games...),
and thusly all the arguments surrounded players changing
their behaviour dissolve into thin air.

> I've heard 2. 2 is a long way from many. The 2 I hear are "more
> fun" and
> "easier to balance games". As for more fun, I keep asking HOW will
> this be
> more fun,

What a silly question, that's why you've been ignored! How
does this taste good, you could ask. It's called subjective
or personal opinion and the vast vast vast majority have
been in touch with the company to agree that it will be more
fun. Each person has his own explanation for "fun", so there
are as many reasons as there are players in the game, no?

Which, as has been stated many times, your 1 reason it isn't
fun (even if it's yelled and screamed 154 times) is still
only 1 reason, and frankly, there are dozens of other "reasons"
why it IS fun countering yours.

Now ask yourself THIS question: Why do you play this game?
If you have more than 1 answer (because it's "fun") then I
am truly eager to learn what another could be. Considering
you have just said that you are aware of 2 reasons to have
ratings, while there's only 1 reason to play the game, it's
quite logical that the overall best thing to do would be
to have ratings WITHOUT playing the game. Would you be
happy then?

> PLEASE tell me HOW this will make the game more fun?

Again, each to their own. Salt might make your chips taste
better, but I eat neither salt nor chips, so your HOW this
makes the chips taste better certainly doesn't apply to me,
does it? Understand this please.

> How will people changing thier style of play to maximize
> their points scored in some ranking system that has no
> hope of determining who is the better player, make the game more fun
> than just playing for fun?

As you yourself have proven, there are no changes (simply
additions) so there couldn't be any changed behaviour. All
this behaviour your complaining about already exists, and all
your exclamations ("no hope of.." etc) are simply the opinion
of one person amongst many. Opinions aren't proven into fact
simply by being written over and over again. The Earth is Flat
The Earth is Flat THE EARTH IS FLAT THE EARTH IS FLAT.

> I'm not going to shut up and go away.

We know. You make some good points about different things.
Unfortunately, this one has run it's course and you aren't
making points. You're trying to objectify the subjective,
you're not willing to read or understand the equally valuable
opinions of others, and you repeat yourself over and over
again, often in contradiction of your own statements.

But feel free to open up and stay.

Brad

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

> >*** As this was your suggestion Darrell how should it be presented? What
> >equations should I use? Note all ratings are factored by the 98% rule (on
> >page one of the ratings).
>
>I like your suggested "Games Won/Games Played In".
>
>I would like to see how you propose applying the win% to the 98% rule.


*** Not sure yet - what would you suggest? Points awarded can then degrade
as per the Council rating?

> >
> >but find
> > >themselves attacked by allies late in a game because those "allies"
> >suddenly
> > >care about the VC thing again.
> >
> >*** No VCs here - I have removed them.
>
>Glad to see VPs go.

VPs are still a part of the Istari rating system but no other. Note VCs
aren't a part of that either.

Clint