(Poll) - SE4 Ratings System

[Slynky]

There have been a few people who have expressed a concern that multi-player games involving rated players somehow detracts from the game. I'm posting this poll to see if the RATED players (can't see any reason why unrated players would bother to vote) would like to discontinue this option for Ratings and limit it to 1 x 1 games only.

[Captain Kwok]

I voted no because it is not a direct measure of the player's skill as there are too many factors beyond the player's direct control in a MP game that can result in a win or loss.

[Fyron]

Slynky said:
There have been a few people who have expressed a concern that multi-player games involving rated players somehow detracts from the game. I'm posting this poll to see if the RATED players (can't see any reason why unrated players would bother to vote) would like to discontinue this option for Ratings and limit it to 1 x 1 games only.

I can. It is the unrated players that are screwed over by the shinnanegans...

[Slynky]

Imperator Fyron said:

Slynky said:
There have been a few people who have expressed a concern that multi-player games involving rated players somehow detracts from the game. I'm posting this poll to see if the RATED players (can't see any reason why unrated players would bother to vote) would like to discontinue this option for Ratings and limit it to 1 x 1 games only.

I can. It is the unrated players that are screwed over by the shinnanegans...


You make a good point, Fyron. Sorry I hadn't thought about that. Of course, one has to agree that there ARE shinnigans that go on in the first place. As I have stated before, in a multi-player game, I don't care if a person is rated or not in that particular game...if it is advantageous to make a treaty with them, I will. In the Anklebiter game, for instance, Atari-Eric wasn't rated and I was partnered with him before anyone else and I never neglected him or used him. He was, basically, my partner who I would never turn on. Rated or not. Deccan was also near me and we became partners. Then, Rex, after a bit of a ruffle, became partners. Joachim never got the chance because of an early scuffle where he lost a colony ship coming through a warp hole and demanded repayment. From that point on, we never treatied up...and he was a rated player. So, I can honestly say I choose my partners and enemies regardless of their rating status.

So, to summarize, one would need to believe there ARE shinnagans going on.

But to come back to your statement...you are right. Players NOT participating should have a say-so, so I urge them to vote.

Thanks, Fyron, for the comment.

[Slynky]

Captain Kwok said:
I voted no because it is not a direct measure of the player's skill as there are too many factors beyond the player's direct control in a MP game that can result in a win or loss.


Actually, there was a discussion about the relevance of adding multi-player games to the Ratings systems and several good points were made. For one thing, or the main thing, a lot of players agreed that diplomacy was ALSO part of the game and that an average/good player with expert diplomacy skills also deserved to be measured. I agree with that (and Geo proved that point in Anklebiters). 1 x 1 games never take diplomacy into account and in trying to simulate an empire at war, diplomacy is an important factor.

So, it was generally accepted that having multi-player games count as rated (for those enrolled) was a useful test of that additional skill.

[parabolize]

Imperator Fyron said:

Slynky said:
There have been a few people who have expressed a concern that multi-player games involving rated players somehow detracts from the game. I'm posting this poll to see if the RATED players (can't see any reason why unrated players would bother to vote) would like to discontinue this option for Ratings and limit it to 1 x 1 games only.

I can. It is the unrated players that are screwed over by the shinnanegans...


True in some cases. But don't turn this into an on or off situation for all of pbw. At the start of a game the host should say if role playing is the goal.

[Fyron]

parabolize said:
True in some cases. But don't turn this into an on or off situation for all of pbw. At the start of a game the host should say if role playing is the goal.

Why would I ever do that? That would be silly... A game doesn't have to have roleplaying as its goal for it to possibly be ruined by Ratings shinnanegans, so a host should consider it for any game, not just roleplaying games.

[Slynky]

parabolize said:

Imperator Fyron said:

Slynky said:
There have been a few people who have expressed a concern that multi-player games involving rated players somehow detracts from the game. I'm posting this poll to see if the RATED players (can't see any reason why unrated players would bother to vote) would like to discontinue this option for Ratings and limit it to 1 x 1 games only.

I can. It is the unrated players that are screwed over by the shinnanegans...


True in some cases. But don't turn this into an on or off situation for all of pbw. At the start of a game the host should say if role playing is the goal.


Another good point! Perhaps, the game owner should just state ahead of time if it will be allowed or not. And, roleplaying games are a different genre...which should probably be excluded by virtue of the goal of the game.

Thanks, Parabolize!

[Slynky]

Imperator Fyron said:

parabolize said:
True in some cases. But don't turn this into an on or off situation for all of pbw. At the start of a game the host should say if role playing is the goal.

Why would I ever do that? That would be silly... A game doesn't have to have roleplaying as its goal for it to possibly be ruined by Ratings shinnanegans, so a host should consider it for any game, not just roleplaying games.


I knew one day that we would agree on SOMETHING, Fyron, LOL.

[Nodachi]

I voted no but would add; unless all the players are rated.

Honestly, I wasn't aware of the problem (but I had been gone for quite some time) but I can see where some people might be concerned. I also think calling it "Ratings shinnanegans" gives an unwarrented negative impression of the rated players.

[Slynky]

Well, LOL, it's clearly a lively topic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif.

[Captain Kwok]

My original post was more towards having players join together just to gain up on a higher rated player due to his skill etc, which is not really within his control and that sort of thing.

[Slynky]

Captain Kwok said:
My original post was more towards having players join together just to gain up on a higher rated player due to his skill etc, which is not really within his control and that sort of thing.


True, but I think if players were to take that sort of tactic, they wouldn't care if he was rated or not. AND, any player who was rated could decide ahead of time if he wanted taht particular game rated or not (and if he was scared of such a thing, could opt not to have his empire rated).

[Nodachi]

But would that really be any different than everyone ganging up on a religious player?

Besides, are there any players who are that obsessive about their rating? Or do most view the system as a way to play more games?

[Alneyan]

My vote goes with Nodachi: I prefer having either no rated players, or only rated players. As you may recall, I did not like the idea of being rated in TGE3 too much.

Apologises for the short answer. A more detailed post could be written later today, and if anyone really wishes to suffer one of my infamous ravings. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Grandpa Kim]

*Groan*

While were at it:
Mod developers should not be allowed to play PBW games in their own mods.
Players who glass planets should receive a penalty when playing against players who capture planets.
All good players should be handicapped and poor players propped up.
And so on....

Suffice it to say, I will play under any conditions, supremely confident that I can win no matter what! That I have lost more often than won, in no way erodes this confidence.

I am playing in a rated, multi game right now and the position, ordinally and galactographically, of other rated players does not effect my decision making. I intend to defeat all my opponents both rated and unrated.

Sheesh, is this really an issue??

...And a big Bronx cheer for the babies who voted no. *Grrr*

[tesco samoa]

I voted no.

If there is a mix of rated and non rated. Then it should not be allowed.

I added it as a rule for games I am running in the future. No Ratings. Unless of course it is a Rated muli player game that I want to run then every one has to be a rated player.

Keep them seperate. As there is influence on the game's outcome.

[geoschmo]

I'm with Grandpa Kim on this one in thinking it's kind of a silly issue. I certainly support the right of any game owner to specify that the game should not be used for Ratings purposes, just as the game owner has the right to say no pre-arranged alliances, or no blue shipsets if he feels like it. The game owner is always teh final say on those sorts of things. But I would not support any sort of flat rule that you can't have a mix of rated and non-rated players in a game. Perhaps Slynky you should merely be more strict that the decision whether to be rated or not must be decided before the game starts. That way anybody that doesn't want to be in a game where Ratings are involved can avoid it.

I also disagree that the Ratings had any sort of a negative affect on the Anklebiters game. Yes, the game didn't come to a complete and total end as the players came to an agreement on the final order of things, but that order only affected the rated players. The suggestion was made to continue the game to the bitter end as a non-rated affair, but the disparity in empire strengths made that an unattractive option. How is that different than a non-Ratings game? I've been in plenty of multiplayer PBW games where the end was "called" rather then fought to the death. Very few in fact actually go till only one person is left standing.

If you aren't a rated player, or aren't being rated in that particular game, what's wrong with just playing the game like you do every other game? I don't understand what the prblem is here.


Nodachi said:
Or do most view the system as a way to play more games?



I can't speak for most people, but that's definetly how I view it.

Geoschmo