Ratings points

[ThinKing]

Oh dear.

You have reminded him now....

[Dameon]

You know Al, I have never said that about the rating system. Only that "I won't use the rating system", which is well within my GM perogative. I can't believe people are willing to let it run with such a random award for good OOP, but hey, that's life. Just pointing out the facts.

[Saladin]

LOL Nick i don't here you complain should you win a game by sleeping the entire game whilst 2 other players rip the whole field. Then it's just clever planning and good diplomacy.

[ThinKing]

Bear in mind, Saladin, that the sleeping tactic as you quote it doesnt work in the most balanced of the WOK games - WOK5. Maybe that is why you dont play?


Nick - perhaps you are right that you "deserve" the rating bonus in Gaz's 4. However I dont think anyone is looking to create a system in which the rating-bonus allocation is ALWAYS fair/correct. The idea is that OVER TIME, the more attacking players will get more RIPs, and be rated more highly (all else being equal).

We all know of times when people have got VPs, but not deserved them. At the time this may have seemed wrong, but look at Kaohalla now - all the top players are at the top, just as we might like. Hopefully the rating system will follow a similar pattern, although I have to wonder whether people REALLY expect to see different names rising to the top (which must be what some people want, seeing as they created a new system). I doubt that will happen (and it will just turn out to be the usual suspects that top the charts), but time will tell...

[ThinKing]

I can't believe people are willing to let it run with such a random award for good OOP, but hey, that's life. Just pointing out the facts.

Nick, you only play WOK5, right? Then you should know that when a player dies, a RIP bonus is awarded to the player who takes his final province. If you are a good player, you will try to use tactics and diplomacy to ensure that you (or your ally) manage to get that province, and hence the bonus.

Do you believe that the WOK5 RIP bonus (corn, gems, etc) is "a random award for good OOP"? Of course not. And yet it is exactly the same as the ratings bonus!

[Donut]

Wait.... Why hasn't there been yelling...

I think TK makes a good point. Hopefully over time the RIP bonus will even out. 1 or 2 RIPs more or less shouldn't affect your rating in the long run. As has been said before, this is a trial. I think that keeping it simple and then adding complexities as needed is a smart thing to do. If it does come down to it, I'm sure that a split bonus will be implemented.

Donut

[Dameon]

Yes yes, I've heard that argument before. But the RIP bonus CAN be split. In fact, in the same Gaz 4, when UD and I worked together to RIP Taker, one of the conditions was that he sell me half the corn he got from the RIP bonus. So, with diplomacy and use of the marketplace, you can split the RIP bonus. All I ever wanted was the same things for the ratings RIP bonus- that it would be allowed to be split through diplomacy. For some reason, though, the WSC feels that the players in WOK are drooling idiots who would forever argue over splitting the ratings RIP bonus, so it isn't happening.

You are right, though TK. (Did I just say that?) The rating system was designed because players wanted to see different names rise to the top of the list. I don't think there will be that major of a difference from Kaohalla, but any difference will come from this RIP bonus. And Sal, Tk is again correct in that sleeping really isn't as successful of a tactic in WOK 5 as it is in WOK 4, usually. The folks who came up with the rating system, with the exception of Bjorn, don't really understand that as much since they don't play. It could have just been handled so much more fairly and logically- oh well, ces't la vie.

[korexus]

It's amazing how similar this situation is to the WoK Species trials.

In Species, certain people complain of a problem and despite being assured that measures have been taken to reduce this and will be introduced in the next testing they continue to complain, seemingly indefinitely.

In the case of the ratings points, certain people (myself included) felt that the system was flawed from the start. The decision was made, however to try out things as they stood but some people do not seem to be able to cope with this.

For my part, I believe that the ratings system is flawed, but as it has no bearing on the champs or kaohalla or anything else which I consider even vauguely important. I am content to let people carry on with the system they have set in place, hoping that it will evolve into a more balanced idea.

Posting complaints will not help convince anyone that a system is flawed. Merely that in one specific case that somone was unfairly dealt with. A problem which will surely be expected to even out.

The simple fact is that, if ratings points become as valuable to players as VPs then strategies will change to ensure that a careful player who takes on another will get the credit for it. If ratings points are considered less important then this will not happen. But if so, who will care? The rash player who scoops up early RIPs will be happy for the high rating that he earns and the careful player who has a lower rating but gets into the champs for his better play will be able to boast about that fact as much as he wishes.

To summarise my vague ramblings. No one cares about one result in one game whether they are for or against ratings points. Those who are for will surely believe that one result will average out and those who are against simply don't care. Please stop whining!


korexus.

PS, of course, if the real problem is that some players don't earn enough VPs to make the champs, but also don't do well enough in games to get a high rating. Maybe they should consider the possibility that they're not actually all that good at the game they're playing...

[Hannibal]

but look at Kaohalla now - all the top players are at the top, just as we might like. Hopefully the rating system will follow a similar pattern, although I have to wonder whether people REALLY expect to see different names rising to the top (which must be what some people want, seeing as they created a new system). I doubt that will happen (and it will just turn out to be the usual suspects that top the charts), but time will tell...

and:

The rating system was designed because players wanted to see different names rise to the top of the list. I don't think there will be that major of a difference

Where on earth did this notion come from??

No-one has ever suggested that any new rating/scoring system should or would change which names tended to come out on top. That's just creating a straw man to knock down.

The original impetus for all this was retention; to give non-gifted new players a sense of making some positive progress by getting a few points on the board, in order to retain them to go further, rather than their failing, nul points, and giving up the game. These points could be insignificant compared to WINNING, but still offer the incentive of forward progress to build on, a step or two on the ladder. THEN people threw in objectives of encouraging active play, and punishing M-3. But nobody ever said it should or would change the names appearing in the top of the list. That's just fabrication to create a criterion on which it would fail; yet more false logic.

If you continue to view all this as an attempted attack on the hallowed top ten, you'll be missing the point. The top ten won't change. Do you want this to remain a coterie of 30 active players? Or are you prepared to look at what is needed for recruitment and retention, and an environment where we are designing the community for 200+ players, not just which of 30 actives should make the champs? I'm all too aware that the only people reading this will be the currently-active, who are presumably happy with the status quo, and not the missing thousands who would vote yes to a system that gave them some step on the ladder to encourage them to stay and build on their progress, rather than give up as "failed". The only people still with the community are the successful ones (think about that as a recipe for growth), and are therefore unlikely to see any fault in the current system; but think about it, just for a moment.........

[Dameon]

Very good points, Korexus and Hannibal. I hadn't honestly thought of the rating system in that light, although I certainly should have. I viewed it more as TK has in the past. That's still not going to stop me from pointing out the obvious flaw, however. The reason I brought the entire thing up is because people said "Oh, the RIP bonuses will even out over time! Most will be legit!".

My point is, in the first five RIPs in Gaz 4, only three were legit. UD got Calidus for no work, and Bjorn got Ja'Jang (or Ja'Ded, whichever) after that player had gone M-3. There's nothing wrong with the concept of a rating system (I like it overall, in fact) but why not strive to make it more fair? Or do you think that those new players that this system is geared to are going to be happy when a more experienced player swoops down and steals their RIP?

[Lowebb]

*Coming into this late and didnt read all the posts*

Nick you make the split RIP bonus sound easy, in GAZ 4, Dameon, UD and Bjorn are working together (as far as I can see), I attacked CAlidus on the same turn as Dameon though my attack only killed about 10 of his troops, I had just defended an attack from Calidus killed 70 odd troops, so why should I not get some of the shared RIP bonus Nick?

This is also a good example of overcomplication, I could rightfully expect to get a cut of the pie but I wouldnt argue that cause UD rightfully RIPPed him.

What would be the procedure now to share RIP bonus?