Council of the Wise

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

> Remember Clint, the goal is to pick "a winner". The goal is to
>rank people, and in ranking, there are good and there are bad.<Snip> 1st
>2nd and 3rd is definitely not the most accurate
>ranking system, but you are already asking players to rank it. And if there
>is a goal to promote the best, then you should make people pick the best.

** With 100 votes you can do exactly that. Maybe my example wasn't
clear. Would you agree that best player in one game is not necessarily the
same best level of excellence shown in for the best player in another
game? Ie they can be rated slightly different. Still first or best player
in that team (and similarly for 2nd and 3rd etc).

Eg

Best Individual Player (BIP): I have 100 votes and give 50 to player 4, 35
to player 3, 15 to player 10. (Similar to Richard's proposed 1st, 2nd and
3rd). I don't have to vote for all 5 suggested here - I could just vote for
1, 2, 5 or 0 - whatever takes my particular fancy as to what BIP is.
Best Team Player (BTP): With my 100 Votes I could give 30 to 3, 20 for 9, 8
and 7, 10 for 5.

This could then be read that I think that player 3, is a better team player
than an individual player but still excellent at both. Whereas Player 4
has done well for himself but not a very good team player. I think this is
superior, no offence intended Richard, to the other proposed system due to
its flexibility.

>My logical response would be, barring someone doing supremely well, to give
>everyone on my team 10 points. Team wins, or team loses, because to me, the
>best person is too often determined by circumstance.

*** I could open it to all the team votes here (and offer 150 points -
although I am not sure that 150 is necessary). Anyone else think that 1,
3,5 or more is the most appropriate number of players to vote for?

>Another thing I would like to add is, if you are going to give people
>points, do not restrict it to that person's team.

** If I were to do that then I would suggest a 3rd rating - Best Enemy
Player? Would that suit?

(OOPs sorry noticed I hadn't sent this earlier this afternoon).

Clint

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

Up for discussion. I would suggest not.

Clint

At 03:40 01/11/02, you wrote:
>Can't remember if this was spelled out, but you can't give yourself
>votes for this, right? I hope not. There are some players out there who
>are awfully full of themselves! ;-)
>
>Mike Mulka
>
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

************************************************** **************
Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@...
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
************************************************** **************

[Richard DEVEREUX]

----- Original Message -----
From: Middle Earth PBM Games
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:53 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Council of the Wise



> Remember Clint, the goal is to pick "a winner". The goal is to
>rank people, and in ranking, there are good and there are bad.<Snip> 1st
>2nd and 3rd is definitely not the most accurate
>ranking system, but you are already asking players to rank it. And if there
>is a goal to promote the best, then you should make people pick the best.

** With 100 votes you can do exactly that. Maybe my example wasn't
clear. Would you agree that best player in one game is not necessarily the
same best level of excellence shown in for the best player in another
game? Ie they can be rated slightly different. Still first or best player
in that team (and similarly for 2nd and 3rd etc).

Eg

Best Individual Player (BIP): I have 100 votes and give 50 to player 4, 35
to player 3, 15 to player 10. (Similar to Richard's proposed 1st, 2nd and
3rd). I don't have to vote for all 5 suggested here - I could just vote for
1, 2, 5 or 0 - whatever takes my particular fancy as to what BIP is.
Best Team Player (BTP): With my 100 Votes I could give 30 to 3, 20 for 9, 8
and 7, 10 for 5.

This could then be read that I think that player 3, is a better team player
than an individual player but still excellent at both. Whereas Player 4
has done well for himself but not a very good team player. I think this is
superior, no offence intended Richard, to the other proposed system due to
its flexibility.

>My logical response would be, barring someone doing supremely well, to give
>everyone on my team 10 points. Team wins, or team loses, because to me, the
>best person is too often determined by circumstance.

*** I could open it to all the team votes here (and offer 150 points -
although I am not sure that 150 is necessary). Anyone else think that 1,
3,5 or more is the most appropriate number of players to vote for?

>Another thing I would like to add is, if you are going to give people
>points, do not restrict it to that person's team.

** If I were to do that then I would suggest a 3rd rating - Best Enemy
Player? Would that suit?

(OOPs sorry noticed I hadn't sent this earlier this afternoon).

Clint

RD:
1) last point first: a rating for Best Enemy Player would be great.
2) The reason I don't like 100-150 votes to spread amongst the team is because, as Brad pointed out, it is possible for a player to spread those votes exactly evenly amongst his team-mates. How do you square this with "rating" players? They all come out with the same score! Don't say it won't happen, because if something can be done, sooner or later somebody will do it.

3) You raised a very good point that the top player in one game is not necessarily as good as the top player in another. A player who finishes top (however you measure it) in a 10-turn wonder where half the enemy drop and the rest concede, should not be rated as highly as the player who finshes top after 200+ hard-fought turns against determined opposition.

What to do here? Multiply the votes by 0.1 of the number of turns? Then if the top player of the 10-turn wonder gets say 100 votes from his team-mates, they equate to 100 on the global scale, whilst the top player after 200 turns, with the same score of 100, ends up with 2000. The first player meanwhile has the opportunity to accumulate more points by playing more games. Just a thought!

Richard.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

> 2) The reason I don't like 100-150 votes to spread amongst the team is
> because, as Brad pointed out, it is possible for a player to spread those
> votes exactly evenly amongst his team-mates. How do you square this with
> "rating" players? They all come out with the same score! Don't say it
> won't happen, because if something can be done, sooner or later somebody
> will do it.

*** Yes - but I think that's okay. Not sure what proportions of players
would do this but I would estimate from the game 39 voting that this would
be low.

> 3) You raised a very good point that the top player in one game is not
> necessarily as good as the top player in another. A player who finishes
> top (however you measure it) in a 10-turn wonder where half the enemy
> drop and the rest concede, should not be rated as highly as the player
> who finshes top after 200+ hard-fought turns against determined opposition.
> What to do here? Multiply the votes by 0.1 of the number of
> turns? Then if the top player of the 10-turn wonder gets say 100 votes
> from his team-mates, they equate to 100 on the global scale, whilst the
> top player after 200 turns, with the same score of 100, ends up with
> 2000. The first player meanwhile has the opportunity to accumulate more
> points by playing more games. Just a thought!

*** Matter of opinion. I think a win is a win whatever timescale - some
players share that opinion others don't. In this example though a problem
I could see is the same turn number for similar turn numbers. Eg if a game
ended on the same turn number then with Richards system (of 1st, 2nd etc)
you would have the same VPs - ie same problem as I put forward about not
recognising excellenece. Anyone else got ideas or feedback on this?

Clint

[Kevin]

At 17:29 07-11-02 +0000, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
>
> Last Draft of Council rating - please get back to me if you feel it needs
> amending?
>
Yes. Drop the idea completely or ask for each team member to vote for one
person.
Anything else is too unwieldly and unlikely to get co-operation.

Kev

[taurnil]

> Yes. Drop the idea completely or ask for each team member to vote
for one
> person.
> Anything else is too unwieldly and unlikely to get co-operation.
>
> Kev

I'm basically with Kev on this.

My position has always been that the whole rating system was pretty
useless to me but if others find it enjoyable let them go ahead. It
is highly unlikely that I will bother to vote at all. I *might* cast
one vote for a most valuable player on a team. I certainly would not
spend the time allocating 100 or even 25 points.

Now, since this is unimportant to me, I won't be offended if the
Lords of Harley just ignore me on this. Still, you might want to
consider that any rating system is going to have to deal with a
substantial number of people like me who have very low motivation to
participate. How will you handle ratings when only 2 teammates vote?
Or when none do?


Mark Jaede

[42!]

I agree with Jason - there should be less points to allocate (25
preferably), otherwise it's fine.

Cheers
Mikkel

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Jason Bennett <jasonab@a...> wrote:
> Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
>
> >
> > You get to allocate 100 points for each category amongst the best
players
> > for each of the three following ratings (not allowed to vote for
> > yourself):
> > Best Individual Player :
> > Best Team Player:
> > Best Enemy Nation:
>
> One thing that concerns me is it seems that players who don't take a
lot
> of time on this might skew the ratings.
>
> Let's say I'm playing with Andrew, Kevin and Ben. They all play well,
> but Ben doesn't have quite as much time this game, so Andrew really
> takes the lead. Kevin goes a good job. So, I rate Andrew 40, Kevin 30
> and Ben 25, with 5 points to someone.
>
> Another player feels the same way I do, that Andrew played the best. He
> doesn't want to hassle with allocating his points, so he just says
> "Andrew played best," thus giving Andrew 100 points.
>
> Combining the two scores, Andrew comes out looking way better than Ben
> or Kevin, but only because one player just tossed his points that way.
>
> My only thought is to give less points to allocate, maybe 50 or 25.
That
> way, giving all points to one player doesn't inflate his score as much.
>
>
jason
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Bennett, jasonab@a...
> E pur si muove!

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

Personally I am not a fan of this voting system - having been there and
tried it. BUT I don't want to not try it. This system with some
advertising (ie debate) can help. Once players get into the habit (usually
takes about 2 years I find - cough), it will work fine.

Clint

At 22:06 07/11/02, you wrote:
> > Yes. Drop the idea completely or ask for each team member to vote
>for one
> > person.
> > Anything else is too unwieldly and unlikely to get co-operation.
> >
> > Kev
>
>I'm basically with Kev on this.
>
>My position has always been that the whole rating system was pretty
>useless to me but if others find it enjoyable let them go ahead. It
>is highly unlikely that I will bother to vote at all. I *might* cast
>one vote for a most valuable player on a team. I certainly would not
>spend the time allocating 100 or even 25 points.
>
>Now, since this is unimportant to me, I won't be offended if the
>Lords of Harley just ignore me on this. Still, you might want to
>consider that any rating system is going to have to deal with a
>substantial number of people like me who have very low motivation to
>participate. How will you handle ratings when only 2 teammates vote?
>Or when none do?
>
>
>Mark Jaede
>
>
>
>Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
>To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
>Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

************************************************** **************
Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@...
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
************************************************** **************

[Laurence G. Tilley]

At 10:30 08/11/2002, Urzahil wrote:
>To make matters a little easier for AM users, I might be able to somehow
>incorporate this into Automagic, or make a completely separate Excel
>file for voting. What do you think?

Rotten idea ;-) We, the underprivileged, forever (and forever) waiting for
MEOWCH, get told that the reason it never comes out is because it is not as
good as your prog. If you add more features for your grinning Excel
compadres, we poor fellows will be forever behind. Couldn't you do
something to make AutoMagic worse? ;-)

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

Sounds an excellent idea. I'll chat to you about this off list.

Clint

>To make matters a little easier for AM users, I might be able to somehow
>incorporate this into Automagic, or make a completely separate Excel
>file for voting. What do you think?
>
>Mike