Ratings points

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 4:12 pm

Sadly i have to agree with Al here.

Nick, it's funny how you don't seem to care that in WOK 5 the person who takes the final provinces of a ripped players gets all his stuff! That's soooo much worse and soooo much more based on luck as you like to say, that i can't believe you continue to play that game.

Now stop trying to annoy Al (there are other more potent ways to do that) and just conform to what the majority of players would like...okidoki.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 4:25 pm

Eg, you're not killing a dead body. For instance in Taker's latest wok 4 game i sadly went m-3, but had a huge army left building up level...now if somebody were to take my provinces from me and rip me that would be a great accomplicement worthy of receiving a rip bonus.

BTW i feel the WSC should just come up with one solution to the M-3 story (consecutive turns or not) and wether or not the provinces of an m-3 player can be restored to neutrals (i would say no). Because all these different rules do not do the game any good.

Post by **korexus** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 4:54 pm

You are easier to kill once M-3 though. All spy info I have on you will remain accurate, so I can missile that huge high level army group into the ground. Plus if I take any EFF provinces then after a while your armies won't help anyway. Plus I know my armies are safe from being missiled. Plus, Plus, Plus...

Just fanning the flames a bit!

korexus.

Post by **gm_al** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 5:52 pm

WOK is an all-or-nothing game. Make the final blow to kill someone and get some reward. Get third in the score and gain no VPs etc.

There is no 100% fair way to share a prize (VPs, rating). Period. The system may not be perfect, but we will tweak it along the way. We have decided to run Bjorns rating in 2004 to see its effects in action. Stick to it.

In case you have forgotten it we are trying to achieve a few things with the ratings, namely reducing missed Turns, speeding up games and making them more aggressive. By neglecting a WSC vote you are not really helping the community.

Once we can judge what should be changed and why we will do so. Im still thinking even an M-3 kill is worth the rating reward, its hardly ever an easy job and requires resources to be accomplished. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but the armies you use there might be needed on another frontline.

Regarding the M-3 the WSC has agreed that the official "dead" call comes at the end of the third Turn. Our ADVICE to the GMs is to follow this (and similar, not revert Provinces to neutral once a player goes MIA I would assume) but if a Player decides his game should be different he just should make it clear in advance to all the Players signing up.

Some guys on this board remind of the SWG people that everytime a change comes up fill the boards with whining threads on how bad it all is and how awful it will turn out etc. etc. - still they have been around for ages and play the game with compassion.

Post by **Egbert** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 6:22 pm

Well, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm whining.

I was pointing out my opinion on one aspect of the rating system --- whether a player should get a bonus for RIPping a player who has quit.

Btw, the "all or nothing" argument doesn't make sense when it comes to the rating system --- the rating system was created to reward players who come close to 1st place but do not get it (as well as rewarding for other things). So, the rating system is actually the opposite of the "all or nothing" idea.

I certainly don't see the harm in talking about the rating system while it is being used --- as Al says, we can tweak it when the need arises.

Okay, I'm done now.

Post by **Dameon** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:54 pm

EXACTLY Eg, the rating system was created specifically to address the "shortfalls" in the VP system, which is to say only two players could get VPs. The rating system certainly should not be an all or nothing type of thing, that's totally against the purpose it was created for. Incidentally, the RIP bonus in a game is something that can easily be modified. For instance, in Gaz's 4, Underdog and I teamed up to kill Taker, and he ended up getting the RIP bonus. However, one condition on my agreeing to that was that he sold me half the corn he got from RIPping Taker. Ergo, the RIP bonus CAN be split using diplomacy.

The way the rating system is set up, it cannot be split or in any way modified, which I think is unreasonable to the extreme. A shared RIP bonus would allow the GM to divide a RIP bonus between the players who actually did the work to kill the player in question. I don't understand why we don't have it, frankly. Can anybody who supports not having it explain the logic of NOT having a shared RIP bonus? You don't have to sell the concept of a RIP bonus to me- I am in favor of it fully if it is done fairly- but rather, give me the argument against a shared RIP bonus.

And Al, since when did you sign up for any of my games anyway? I'm not going to be broken hearted that you are going to miss out on them- I GM as a volunteer service, and if a player doesn't like my house rules or the way I GM a game, I'm not going to be upset if they don't sign up.

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 2:07 am

I guess I'll chime in here, since I saw this referred to as "Bjorns rating system". It is not. I maintain my own rating system which I share with anyone who cares to see it. However, my system is similar to the VP system in that only those who get VPs from a game will gain points. Everyone else loses points.

Remember where this started. Hannibal (and others) suggested that we somehow find a way to create a rating system that rewarded players for doing well even if they did not win VPs often. The objective was to have a system where just being one of the last 4 or 5 players would have some reward.

My contribution to this discussion was that to keep the system fair to new comers after it has been in use for awhile, the total of rating points won and lost in a single game would have to be equal to each other. Otherwise the overall ratings would rise as time went on. This will happen anyway, as some people try the game, get beat up or quit after two or three games and leave. Those that are left will usually benefit from these people who come and go.

Al's contribution was that points be awarded for eliminating other players from the game. It is often true that the player that does the most damage to an opponent is not the one who takes his last province. However, doing anything else would put an undue burden on the GM to allocate the bonus points among the players who attacked.

Dameon, if you can offer a suggestion here we would be happy to discuss it. Sure, if two allies combine to kill an opponent they will probably agree to share the RIP bonus, but suppose you take 9 of his 10 provinces and your arch enemy from the other direction takes his last one. Do you think that person is going to be intereseted in sharing the RIP bonus with you? Especially if that last province had a lot of amies and defense? I don't want to put GMs in the position of having to arbitrate such disputes.

Raw suggested a linear distribution of points for final position, which I did not like at first. However, when you combine that with the fact that the first ones out also suffer the RIP loss and the ones who stay in gain that, I can see where the end result will still reward those who stay late into a game and eliminate other players. Heck, you can be the 5th person eliminated in a game, but if you RIP two other players first I think your rating for the game would still increase.

This is a WOK rating system and was created by consensus of the members. Everyone is probably going to complain about some aspect of it, but overall I think it is better than nothing. We can work on it, as I suspect we will.

Just for grins, it would be interesting in the first year to maintain two sets of numbers. One that includes the RIP bonus and one that does not. It really adds very little to the recording of the results.

Post by **Dameon** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 2:33 am

I think that GMs are quite able to figure out who has done most of the work in RIPping somebody, but if you are concerned about putting GMs in a sticky spot, why not set some concrete limits?

A good idea would be:

"The RIP bonus for a player death will be divided equally among any players who capture at least one third of his provinces." AND/OR "The RIP bonus may be shared between up to three players at their discretion."

In the scenerio you posted above, Bjorn, the arch-enemy would get the full RIP bonus under the existing rules. In the rules I suggest, he would get nothing. And if he happened to take say 4 of those 10 provinces, well, he probably deserves a share in it. Also, the second part of that would allow for players who contributed to a player's death via spellwork or other non-invasive strategies to earn part of the bonus if the players who have armies actually doing the dying consent to it. In addition, it allow for players to agree to split the RIP bonus in any diplomatic discussions, and there would be no rule against it as there exists now.

So why not implement this? What are the negatives? It would require no more work for the GM than the current ratings system does, and it adds flexibility into the system so the RIP bonus can be fairly divided to reflect the actual diplomatic situation that brought about a player's RIP, if there is one. Part of the wording of the vote that passed was that this system would be open to discussion- what's bad about giving players more choice? I understand that I was not involved in the initial discussions on the rating system, but I feel this is some good input that would move it in the right direction.

Al's statement "There is no 100% fair way to share a prize (VPs, rating). Period." is indeed an accurate one. However, there are certainly MORE accurate ways to share prizes, and my impression was that the rating system was created to facilitate that.

BigJOzzy · Post by **BigJOzzy** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 4:06 am

I don’t always get a chance to post here, but I have been trying to keep up more. So I wanted to add my two sense worth here also.

First off I love the ratting system as it is. But then I love RIPing opponents. I don’t remember who’s game it was, it was a China map, but in that game I had 3 RIP’s in one turn. Now the first thing is I would never have been able to do this without my allies at the time, but there is an art into getting in the last hit. It is as effective as lets saying talking everyone into attacking someone you think is the strongest player. Lets face it everyone this is a war game and not everything is nice and neat, because attacking players and taking them out is not nice and neat. Working someone you are napped with so you end up with the spoils in the end is not nice and neat. However, all of this things are part of the game and can not be ignored just because you want everything nice and neat.

Now more then once I have lost out on the spoils of war, because I was not there at the end to get those spoils, and hey that is just part of the game. Some times the Oop is against you and sometimes a rerun (as in GM Josh game) takes the RIP from you and gives it to someone else, but that is all part of the game. Frankly I do not want a game with out some luck in it, because I am lucky…….always loved going to Vegas…..=)…..Anyway, I don’t think you could ever be fair to everyone that has a part in a RIP so don’t try. It will make it so more negotiations go on between allies or someone does it all on there own and is weekend because of it and is RIPed themselves, this has happened to me too.

Now in the long run I know we need to see how the numbers work out before we make any judgement calls on this, however, I will tell you this, I will go after people in game for that bonus, not that I wouldn’t anyway, but now there is an incentive……

…..got to love those carrots.

Well just my two sense worth.

Massielita

Post by **Donut** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 4:30 am

For the rating system to be effective in ranking players according to there abilities, and there actions in a game, the awarding of points has to be constant. There has to be a formula to compute the rating points, or it remains constant in that the player taking the last province gets the points. It can not be determined by diplomacy. Also, When can you consider a player to start have being killed? Players swap provinces for turns before a player is killed. At what point do you say that you took 4 prov. and he took 3?

While I can agree that getting the RIP bonus for someone that goes M-3 could definitly go away, I think it is there so that the gain and loss in rating points remains 0. I have to go with K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). As it is now, the rating system is completely arbitrary. It has little to no bearing on how the game is conducted. Maybe at some point GM's will put a MAX Rating limit to join a game, but I'm fairly sure that .001 point will probably not get you banned from a game (I could be wrong).

Allowing someone to take out an opponent, and then take his/her last province and get the benefits is a very good strategy. While somewhat cheap, it is a strategy and I'm sure it occurs. Why not put this into the rating system as well? If you're not going to finish off an opponent, why get the benefit? In Al's 17, I killed over 200 of Moridin's and Griffon's armies, greatly hurting them and killing myself in the process. Was I bitter when Trewqh killed them both, and went on to win the game? No, I got all the credit I needed when he thanked me

. For me to have asked Trewqh for more credit than I got would have been ridiculous.* Maybe he was smarter than I was in his strategy. Whatever he did different worked. The game is to kill your opponent, not beat him senseless with wet noodle and then hope he doesn't come back.

I'm for leaving it as is. Anything you come up with there will always be what-ifs. There will also always be circumstances where someone gets "Screwed." If the rules are constant, and everyone is aware of the rules, noone gets "Screwed."

Donut

Post by **gm_al** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:20 am

We need simple rules and little work for the GM to make the ratings feasible.

Nick, what will you do if the Players that participated in RIPping another one cant agree on how to share the RIP bonus ? What if there were 4 or 5 Players participating in getting another one RIPped ? What if (I can come up with a ton more)....

Is the RIP bonus unfair ? To some extent and at some point in some games - yes. But then so its with EVERY move you make, every battle you conduct. Got a higher PATT and still lost to a bunch of low-level peasants ? Unfair. Been last in the OoP for five Turns ? Unfair. etc. etc.

As Donut pointed out, if the rules are constant no one gets screwed in the long run. We now have ratings, and it looks as it is motivating the Players already to do more "action" in their moves.

The only disturbing thing to me is that the current WSC chairperson is once again not following WSC decisions. Its kinda childish that we have to try and force you comply to everything we decide on, dont you think ? Grow up and try to be a team player for a change.

Undertaker · Post by **Undertaker** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 2:08 pm

I think Quitting or going M-3 is alot worse than being RIPped, thus there really should be a more severe penalty, like double the current ones.

It doesn't seem right that in Gaz 04 that I ended up with a worse rating than Ja'Jang. He missed the first three turns and I was RIPPED on the second turn. But the fact is, at least I sent in orders for those two turns as opposed to not even bothering to play or find a replacement.

Post by **Dameon** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 4:01 pm

gm_al wrote:We need simple rules and little work for the GM to make the ratings feasible.

Nick, what will you do if the Players that participated in RIPping another one cant agree on how to share the RIP bonus ? What if there were 4 or 5 Players participating in getting another one RIPped ? What if (I can come up with a ton more)....

So basically, the reason not to share a RIP bonus is "WOK is unfair, why should we try to change that?"! I understand that there is some inequity inherent in games, but why not try to improve and lessen that instead of just accepting it? Isn't that what the rating system is about??

In any case, there are going to be arguments no matter what. But why can we not allow players to split a RIP bonus if they want to? That says nothing about them arguing about it or how many players did what, but it allows for more player choice. If a player who DOES get the RIP bonus is willing to split it with other player(s), due to diplomatic agreements or otherwise, why can we not allow this? It would avoid arguments in the long run, and it would make things more fair. I guess some folks are against making things more fair....not sure I understand why. I am not saying we have to institute a rule where a player is forced to share a RIP bonus, but I think if a player wants to share it, why should there be rules against that? I am all for increasing player choice, not taking it away.

Also, Al, the WSC voted that we allow this system to be used. It said nothing about forcing GMs to be the ones to implement it. The WSC made no rulings about who is enforcing the system, whether it be the players, GMs, or the Gatekeeper himself. In addition, I am clearly letting anybody who signs up for my games know I am not keeping track of ratings, but they are welcome to. If I am not mistaken, the WSC exists to reflect the will of the majority of the players. If ALL the players who enter my game agree that they will track their own ratings, then what's the big deal? I am not physically preventing players from reporting their rating changes for my games, simply letting them know that I will not do it for them! God forbid we actually ask players to take responsibility for their own ratings, huh?

Post by **korexus** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 4:10 pm

Undertaker wrote: It doesn't seem right that in Gaz 04 that I ended up with a worse rating than Ja'Jang. He missed the first three turns and I was RIPPED on the second turn. But the fact is, at least I sent in orders for those two turns as opposed to not even bothering to play or find a replacement.

One way to deal with that would be to count the player as quitting on the first turn that they stopped sending in orders. So in your example Ja'Jang would count as quit on turn 1. This still gives people a chance to RIP the player first though.

The problem with serving a harsher penalty is that often a player cannot do anything but nobody RIPs them. Especially in WoK 4. Counting them as RIPed from the first turn they gave up trying seems fairer than doubling the penalty just for not fighting on when there was no chance...

korexus.

Post by **korexus** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 4:28 pm

Dameon wrote: Also, Al, the WSC voted that we allow this system to be used. It said nothing about forcing GMs to be the ones to implement it. The WSC made no rulings about who is enforcing the system, whether it be the players, GMs, or the Gatekeeper himself. In addition, I am clearly letting anybody who signs up for my games know I am not keeping track of ratings, but they are welcome to. If I am not mistaken, the WSC exists to reflect the will of the majority of the players. If ALL the players who enter my game agree that they will track their own ratings, then what's the big deal? I am not physically preventing players from reporting their rating changes for my games, simply letting them know that I will not do it for them! God forbid we actually ask players to take responsibility for their own ratings, huh?

It is, however, considerably harder for the players to track ratings. Especially in a WoK 4 game where it's not shown in the turn reports if you RIPed a player or not. Each player would have to keep the information of who was RIPed before them and what turn they RIPed each player, then send it off to the gate keeper. Who would have to wait until he had received all 10 copies and check that there wern't any anomalies (deliberate or accidental) and then calculate the ratings change.
If a GM tracks the ratings change all he needs to do is record what turn a player gets RIPed or goes M-3 and who RIPs the player. Much simpler, much easier.

korexus.

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:31 pm

Dameon wrote: ....But why can we not allow players to split a RIP bonus if they want to

I could buy into this. The player who does take the last province of an opponent allocates the RIP bonus as he wishes. He can either claim them all or distribute some to up to 2 other players in any way he sees fit. He need only inform the GM of how to assign them. If the GM receives no notification, then all of them go to the RIPing player.

Post by **trewqh** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 7:04 pm

I guess that since the rating system was voted on by the WSC then any changes to it may be done by another WSC vote, right?

Bjorn wrote:
Dameon wrote: ....But why can we not allow players to split a RIP bonus if they want to
I could buy into this. The player who does take the last province of an opponent allocates the RIP bonus as he wishes. He can either claim them all or distribute some to up to 2 other players in any way he sees fit. He need only inform the GM of how to assign them. If the GM receives no notification, then all of them go to the RIPing player.

The way Bjorn put it is the only way I'd accept Dameon's ideas. (Unless someone comes up with a better one. Dameon isn't

)

I can support that, need two more.

Dameon, whether you like Bjorn's woridng or not, please try to find supporters to bring a new rule to the WSC and spare us an arguement where noone will bend to the others sides position, because now this looks like a pointless quarrel to me.

No one from this community can MAKE a GM do anything. This is a banal and there's nothing to argue about.

trewqh

Lowebb · Post by **Lowebb** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 9:13 pm

If you bring player opinion into it by asking him how he wants to split the bonus you are just asking for hundreds of flamers on the boards with "You said you would do this but you done this." We dont need it, the rating system is brilliant in it simplisity. This is yet again a case of Dameon not getting his way so he wont do it. There was a vote Dameon, live with it or feck off, no one will shed a tear, I promise.

Many a time I have lost out in arguements and not once have I felt the need to go my own way in a huff.

Post by **ThinKing** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 12:45 am

Lowebb wrote:This is yet again a case of Dameon not getting his way so he wont do it. There was a vote Dameon, live with it or feck off, no one will shed a tear, I promise.

Amen brother.

Post by **Donut** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:00 am

Bjorn wrote:I could buy into this. The player who does take the last province of an opponent allocates the RIP bonus as he wishes. He can either claim them all or distribute some to up to 2 other players in any way he sees fit. He need only inform the GM of how to assign them. If the GM receives no notification, then all of them go to the RIPing player.

That sounds reasonable. If a player is willing to give up part of his RIP bonus, then so be it. I still think though that a better Ranking system should come from a constant (We voted that VP's could only be split a certain way, no .5 VP's for a reason). I agree though that it should be solely up to the person who ultimately got the RIP. If a split is negotiated and the RIPper never follows through, it could be almost the same as NAP breaking. It'll also force people to "Pay" for help.

Donut