Ratings points

Post by **Dameon** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:03 am

Ben, the only flamers would come from somebody who would lie about splitting a RIP bonus with people he is working with, which as Donut said is about akin to NAP breaking. I personally trust the word of any players I deal with; obviously you haven't been so lucky or you wouldn't have found any flamers, I guess.

I think that changes to the ratings system would have to be run by the WSC, but not necessarily voted on- we are in a trial period with it. I'd only think a vote was necessary if there were more than one or two WSC members who objected to this change when run by the WSC. Starting with the next scoring period I imagine we'd need a full vote to change any aspect of the ratings, but for now as we are in a trial period I think a general consensus would do, no?

Post by **gm_al** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:30 am

Although the WSC page reads: "Vote 17: Should we install a rating system within WOK? This system is subject to changes 6 months, on January 1 and July 1" I could live with any agreement that everyone wants.

Two things:
1. if the guy that does the RIP may at his own will share the rating reward EVENLY WITH ONE OTHER PERSON (in good WOK tradition) I could live with that. But what will you do if someone shares just with his Clanmate that never ever was part of the fight ? Have the GM check the Turn reports, do an analysis of the situation or something similar ? I see where this is heading, at least the system we now have is as EASY as 1-2-3 and doesnt require endless discussions on who did what and why.
2. if a GM doesnt wish his game to be rated he should say so in advance. I dont like seeing that the GM says "some Players can track if they want" - the rating is a GM work, so its either "rate it" or "dont" for now. Of course the vote clearly reads "shall WE install...." so you would think that this "WE" concerns every GM, but then once again while all are equal some are more equal then the others.... believe me, the next vote about the rating shall read "mandatory for all GMs and all games".

Post by **Dameon** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 4:12 pm

I think that by and large I trust the intergrity of the people I play this game with. I don't think somebody is going to try to claim a ratings bonus for their clanmate if their clanmate didn't do anything. First, rating are a purely individual thing, and why would somebody want to give up part of their RIP bonus to a clanmate when it doesn't really do the clan any good? And second and more importantly, I just don't see people trying to lie and abuse the system. I honestly thing that people are not going to make an effort to abuse the system. CAN it be abused? Probably. WILL it be? I doubt it. If the WOK community at large proves me wrong and starts being unethical, I will be very surprised indeed.

I think the RIP bonus being split only between two players max is pretty realistic, it's not often you'll get a 3-on-1 in this game, in my experiences. Also, I think that if a GM doesn't want a rated game that doesn't mean players shouldn't be allowed to track their own ratings if they so wish. Although to be honest it probably isn't an issue for me at least if we are fixing the RIP bonus so it's not an all-or-nothing deal which can often be heavily based on luck- by interweaving it with the diplomatic fabric of Kaomaris I think it's entirely a good thing and appropriate to be counted in ratings.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 6:08 pm

Ók, maybe i'm wrong here but certain people here kept complaining that the rating system should be as simple as possible with a minimum amount of work for the GM as possible. Now we're going to ask the GM to even keep track of shared rip bonusses? Hogwash!

Shared bonusses is a very bad idea...especially if you're going to limit it to two players as that simply creates a lot of problems when a rip has been accomplished by 3 or more players. And what if two players rip 95% of a guys army but another player who wasn't part of their 'deal' stole their rip from them because he was first in the OoP?

Bottom line is...with the current system it's not possible to create a way for people to share the rip bonus fairly, so best and easiest thing to do is to just give the rip bonus to the person who took the last province from a player, period.

And the WSC should pass a rule making it mandatory for GM's to keep track of who ripped who and on which turn. If they do not their game will NOT be an official game and no vps will be given for that game.

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 7:42 pm

gm_al wrote: But what will you do if someone shares just with his Clanmate that never ever was part of the fight ?

Yep, that is a problem. It is possible for some clan to have some funny rule where they ALWAYS split RIP clan points if they are in the same game, even if the other player does not contribute directly to an RIP. You could argue that a long term NAP with the player allowed you to commit 100% to the attack and therefore you are splitting the VPs with your NAP partner. Seriously, what does a GM do when two players inform the GM at the start of the game that any RIP rating points awarded to either of them will be split between them?

And don't start with the GM having some guidelines where they can disallow this. I agree with Sal 100% that the GM does not need any more aggravation when running games. It is tough enough with people wanting turn re-runs because their orders got lost in the ethernet someplace. The last thing they need is some player insisting that Mr. 'X' over there share the rating points with them instead of Mr. 'Y' over there. "Just look at the turn reports and see for yourself". Tough.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, of course. Once the the GM posts the results of how the points were split, there may be a protest from some other player that "so-and-so promised me this and if you don't make him share the points with ME I'll quit the game." Anyone who does not think it will happen hasn't played here very long. Where does it end?

Anything we suggest has pros and cons. I am biased in that I would like to give the RIPing player the OPTION of sharing the points with someone, even if it is just one other player. There is nothing to COMPEL them to do so, unless we want to invent a version of the NAP document where two players both sign off on this document and send it to the GM. (Does anyone actually USE that thing?)

However, I would insist that once the RIPing player has made his declaration to the GM it is irrevocable. Even if someone produces a purported email that claims he agreed to share them, too bad. None of this, "Oh, I'm sorry. I meant to split them with Mr. 'Z' over there." Nope. Once the GM posts the award, that is the end of it.

Interesting discussion. I have a note here in answer to the original post which will follow.

Undertaker · Post by **Undertaker** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 7:50 pm

Undertaker wrote: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.

All this talk about splitting RIP bonuses seems like it should be less of a concern than the one I brought up.

Really, I'd like to see this issue addressed.

Undertaker · Post by **Undertaker** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 7:50 pm

Undertaker wrote: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.

All this talk about splitting RIP bonuses seems like it should be less of a concern than the one I brought up.

Really, I'd like to see this issue addressed. Maybe a penalty for every turn missed.

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 7:59 pm

Saladin wrote:If you rip a player that has already gone M-3, do you still get the rip bonus?

Here is my read on that. Follow this train of thought closely.

Going M3 does not count as being eliminated from the game for the RIP bonus. It IS used to determine rating points for the position you finish. So, you may go M3 on turn 4 and finish in 9th place, but no one has received any RIP bonus points and you have not lost any RIP bonus points because your position is still on the map. If your position remains on the map when a 5th person is RIPed, then you will NOT lose any additional points for being RIPed because, in fact, you were not one of the first 5 to be RIPed.

Of course, if someone does come along and make you one of the first RIPs of the game, then you will suffer the RIP rating loss.

Now, Undertakers point is deserving of note here. I believe we discussed this and I don't recall the outcome. If a player goes M3, is their turn of elimination determined by the turn they went M1, or the turn they went M3. In his case I agree that a player who NEVER submits an order for a game and goes M3 on turn 3 should really be considered as quit on the turn he went M1, which would be turn 1. Not eliminated, but quit.

Just my 2 pence.

Post by **gm_al** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:01 pm

Again, I can see where this discussion will eventually lead: to an over-complicated, undoable rating system that is just a burden for the GM and the Players.

1. While I can see the point that we might want to allow players share RIP ratings I still believe we simply shall not do it. Lets keep it small and stupid.

2. I read it similar to you Bjorn. Someone that goes M3 loses rating, but is not counted towards the "first 5 RIPs" limit that give rating bonus.

3. In accordance to the WSC vote and for continuity the M3 should be counted at the end of the third Turn that the player misses. To avoid some unjust cases I think we should add that Players never sending in a single Turn are always counted as the first dropouts of a game.

4. One sentence I dont fully understand on the ratings page is: "In cases where participants quit the game and others are eliminated on the same turn, those that quit are considered to have finished AFTER those that were eliminated." - wouldnt it mean that those that QUIT get a better rating then those that were eliminated ? - explain plz.

5. I fully support that games with no ratings from the GMs should not give out any VPs. We are all here to establish a working system. A game that "might" give ratings is not good. It will also play differently then a game where people get rating rewards.

I am ready to submit a new proposition to the WSC (if we cant agree here). Because I believe that shared RIPs are not feasible I will just ask for the "never sending Turns means first QUIT" addition and that non-rated games are not allowed to give out VPs.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:28 pm

I agree with all your points Al.

Now make it so Imperial Staff Sergeant.

Post by **Donut** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:23 am

4. One sentence I dont fully understand on the ratings page is: "In cases where participants quit the game and others are eliminated on the same turn, those that quit are considered to have finished AFTER those that were eliminated." - wouldnt it mean that those that QUIT get a better rating then those that were eliminated ? - explain plz.

I thought we agreed that players eliminated on the same turn would add up all ratings points collected, and distribute them evenly.

Example: Trewqh and Piggy died on the same turn and finished 8th and 9th (however you wanna look at it). In this case I think Trewqh went first in the OoP so would have been considered RIPed first. I took the points for 8th and 9th place, added and then divided by 2; giving them both the same rating change.

I thought that this is what we decided so as not to allow the OoP to reflect in a players rating.

I also think that if a player goes M-3/Quit, they should automatically lose rating points. If a player comes along later in the game and eliminates them, then the player gains the RIP bonus. If a player doesn't RIP them in the end, then they still lose the bonus. The reason we gave for losing points for missing turns was that we wanted to detere goin M-3.

Whether players can split a RIP bonus is pretty much a toss up. I would almost suggest a quick vote of public opinion on it.

Donut

Underdog · Post by **Underdog** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 2:07 am

OK my 2 cents here.

On Undertakers question:
I feel that any player going m-3 should be considered as quit on the turn they went M-1, not M-3. They are officially quit after they go M-3 but they are considered to have quit when they missed the first turn. let me put it this way. there are 5 players left in the game. Now I decide to quit sending orders in. on the next turn 1 of those players is ripped. even though I quit playing before that player I would finish in 4th place since he was ripped before I went M-3. even though I quit playing first and nobody decided it was worth it to RIP me since they would get no bonus for it.

As for sharing a RIP bonus:
I think it would be unwise to allow sharing that. It will cause nothing but problems for people and GM's in the future. I just have this feeling that it will do nothing but cause more flamers and that is the last thing we need here. I agree that it would be nice, but it sets a nasty precedent that we don't need.

Now Al your question about finishing position:
Quitters will always be considered to have finished in the lower position for ratings purposes. ex. 1 player is ripped on turn 5 while another quits on that same turn. The quitter is considered to have finished in 10th while the player who was ripped is considered to have finished 9th.
I was under the impression that the points are only averaged if both players were RIP'ed on the same turn I thought quitters were considered seperately. Not sure how that should be worded but basically the quitter finished 10th and the rip'ed player is 9th and you wouldn't average those 2 scores in that case. I might be wrong, but that is the way I would do it.

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:26 am

For the most part, I really could give a crap less about this extraneous point system, but I DO have an opinion (for what it's worth) on one point.

Not to give VPs to a game run by a GM that decides not to buy into this system is ridiculous. For one, it's the GMs decision whether or not to put forth the effort to keep track of these points. Regardless of a GM using this point system or not, the FACT is, there is no greater effort involved by the player in a game that is rated as opposed to not rated, and therefore should be absolutely NO EXCLUSION OF VPS for game not rated.

What a load of crap.

As it is, I will never run another game if I have to award these points. I really don't give a dangnabbit about them, as a player, or as a GM. They are just something else for cry-babies to whine about.

-Calidus

Lowebb · Post by **Lowebb** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 9:20 am

That certainly got Calidus wound up a bit. Felt a bit awkward reading the post for a second

I don't think there is that much more effort in doing the rating system but then again I aint GMing at the minute, but I do now ultimatums never achieve anything (Calidus). That is why we have a voting system and discussion forum.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:11 am

Well that's too bad then Calidus.

Sounds to me like if i don't like it i don't have to do it although the rest of the community thinks it's best.

Very very selfish indeed.

Actually more childish, because the whole thing is no trouble at all. Just a matter of not getting it the way you want and then trying to ruin it for everybody else.

Bottom line is Bjorn and now Donut are trying to keep stats of the games, this includes the number of rips a player makes, how long games last, etc. etc. All very interesting to know. And if some games get there data added to the stats and others do not IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY VALUE!

So Al, time to get that vote going.

Brykovian · Post by **Brykovian** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 3:11 pm

I haven't offered an opinion on anything related to the rating system because I care very little about it. However, I have to completely agree with Calidus on anything that will render a GMs games as "useless" or "having no value" ... we have few enough GMs and games as it is.

Working toward anything that will either drive away GMs or not count games being run seems like a gun pointed at our collective foot.

-Bryk

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 3:52 pm

So you feel that the whole community should be held hostage to some people's childish behaviour then?

Post by **Dameon** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:26 pm

Saladin just because we don't agree with the rating system doesn't mean we are childish, it simply means we do not want to deal with it since we view it as completely extraneous. Now, because the community seems to want this overall, I am TRYING to come up with a compromise that I could live with as a GM and make me feel that the rating system is worth implementing in my games. I frankly fail to see how the sharing of RIP bonuses would bring up any more arguments than normal NAPs do, really. The sharing should be 100% up to the person who did the RIPping, and it should not matter at all what anybody else says. Either you trust the person you worked with to share it with you, or you do not in which case you probably shouldn't be working with them in the first place. This WILL NOT make any more work for a GM than the current system, as it is entirely up to the players if they want to share their RIP bonus or not. I am not trying to force anybody to share anything, but I feel the option should be there.

About going M3 and RIP bonuses....I think we all agree that going QUIT is worse than being RIPped. Ergo, if somebody is RIPped on turn 4, but another player QUITs on turn 5, I think the QUIT player should automatically lose the most points in the standings, instead of losing less than the RIPped player. In Gaz's group 4 Taker was RIPped turn 2 and Ja'Jang QUIT turn 3, and Taker lost more ratings points. That makes zero sense to me, since at least Taker had sent in orders and would have continued to do so had he not been RIPped. Also, why would you give somebody a RIP bonus for killing a QUIT player? That's ridiculous- I know it seems like it would be more balanced to have somebody gain points everytime somebody loses them, but if a player is QUIT than it's like hitting a sitting target- anybody could do it, with little or no risk to themselves. Getting a RIP bonus for somebody who is M1 or M2 makes sense, but once they QUIT, I don't feel players deserve a RIP bonus for taking them off the map. Whether they are on the map or off of it for the duration of the game would have little if any effect on it, after all.

Anyway whatever the specifics of the system, the bottom line is that GMing is a volunteer position, and like Calidus and Bryk, I am simply not going to do it anymore if you are telling me the games I run aren't worth anything because I am not using the rating system. I have said repeatedly that IF a player wishes to track their own rating changes in a game I am running, I will do nothing to stop them. This means players can still participate in my games and have them count towards the ratings, just like any other game. If they think it is worthwhile, then they have the option of using it. If players WANT to play in a game where the GM says "I am not tracking ratings points- do it yourself if you wish to" why the heck should the WSC stop them from doing so? Shaeds of Big Brother there, really. If you seriously want to start eliminating GMs because they aren't using the rating system, well, the WSC can vote on that, but all you would be doing is using a "childish" reason to lessen the amount of games for WOK players to participate in.

Brykovian · Post by **Brykovian** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:41 pm

Saladin wrote:So you feel that the whole community should be held hostage to some people's childish behaviour then?

I've always loved your leaps in "logic", Sal ... kinda miss those days when we used to debate every now and then on IM ... but only just a little.

Let me state this very simply: If you do something that ticks off a single, childish person and they take their ball and go home ... it can probably be shrugged off. If, however, you put something in place that will make a number of good quality GMs consider not running games because of it, then I think you might want to spend a little more time thinking about it. GMs are not in over-supply currently. Not having any games to play -- but having them all rated -- doesn't seem like such a great community-building thing to me.

Dameon wrote:The bottom line is GMing is a volunteer position, and like Calidus and Bryk, I am simply not going to do it anymore if you are telling me the games I run aren't worth anything because I am not using the rating system.

Whoa! Don't lump me into *that* category, Nick. I just said that chasing away GMs is a problem that needs to have an eye kept on it. I did *not* say I wouldn't GM any more games due to the ruling. I've currently not opened any new games due to time restrictions. But, if things lighten up on me later this year, I *will* probably open up a new game, no matter what the ratings requirements.

-Bryk

Post by **Dameon** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:54 pm

Sorry Bryk, I misunderstood your post. Still, it's good to see that like Cal and I, you agree that we shouldn't make an effort to reduce the number of willing GMs. Frankly while I am not surprised at Al's "my way or the highway approach", Saladin, I so often agree with you that I find your total insistence on forcing a volunteer to do something they don't want to perplexing, to be honest. I'm not stopping anybody from using the rating system, and I simply do not see that asking a player to take a few extra minutes a game if they wish to track their own ratings as either unreasonable or against the WSC ruling. In any case, I am not issuing any ultimatums here. I plan on continuing to GM well into the future, but only if I am allowed to by the WSC.

The Worlds of Kaomaris

Ratings points

Re: Ratings points