Empire Rankings

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

The poll posted by Pat brings me to the question of a League table for
Empire in General. There used to be a historical list of top players
on the wolfpack site, but that has gone.

I wonder if we can have a current League Table. This wouldn't be easy,
but here are some thoughts as to how it might work.

Each game obviously needs to be registered with the custodians of
Wolfpack. They can then assign a total number of points to that game
depending on the number and quality of the players involved. Eg LOTR
might have a large number of points, whereas Newbie might have fewer
points. Then the points can be allocated to the players in the game by
ranking, or even better, by performance. The latter is a bit
subjective and would probably need to be decided by the deity. The
advantage of points by performance is that you could be totally wiped
out by a highly ranked opponent and be bottom of the table, but still
get some points for putting up a good fight. Conversely, somebody who
was lucky and got some fodder kills and ends up top of the table might
not get the most points if he sits on his ass doing nothing.

The points would then work like the tennis system, say on a 3 year
cycle. Ie, your points from over 3 years ago would disappear so you
have to keep on playing to maintain your position.

We would have to have a separate table for solo players and teams.

The reasons for having a table?
1. incentive to play to keep your position.
2. we would have a more formal ranking rather than the current system
where you nominate your own.
3. we can then have handicap games where highly ranked players might
start on a an island, the size of which is proportional t their
ranking (ie top players get small islands)
4. we will know who is really good, rather than having people just
blowing their own trumpet based on performances decades ago (though I
guess veterans know this already).

This would of course mean more work for Wolfpack, and any system would
have to have their blessing!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

wahbitc@hotmail.com (wahbit) wrote in message news:<27fabeab.0410182337.7bc55113@posting.google.com>...
> I wonder if we can have a current League Table. This wouldn't be easy,
> but here are some thoughts as to how it might work.

I keep a league table for the SW Empire series. I have not updated it
after the recent game, but you can have a look at

http://202.172.121.119/SWEmpire/Rankings.htm

The points system is I use fairly arbitrary and I am still
experimenting with it. For the last game, just ended, the game was
worth 1 point for each country that breaks sanctuary plus 2 points for
every country that reaches 100 sectors. The New Byss game was worth 8
+ 22 = 30 points. The points are split evenly among the players that
declared victory, so R56 and Yinchorr earned 15 points each for this
game.

There were some bonus points, to keep it interesting once it becomes
apparent who is going to win:

1 point for the first cap sack --> Yinchorr sacked the New Byss
capital
1 point for the highest tech level --> I believe R56 had the highest
tech
1 point for first player to reach 250 sectors --> I believe this was
Yinchorr
1 point the highest ranked player to survive --> TrojanHorse got this
point

I saw there was some discussion about the points between players
during the game, so I think it can be a fun and interesting add on to
the game.

> Each game obviously needs to be registered with the custodians of
> Wolfpack. They can then assign a total number of points to that game
[snip]

Yep.

I suggest that making a points system formal and perfectly fair and
uniform will be boring. The more interesting that points are, the more
fun they are. Perhaps it would be best to allow the deities of the
game decide how points would be awarded instead, within some loose
guideline, such as

Games cannot be worth more than 2 points for each player that breaks
sanctuary

or similar. Maybe even allow players to decide some points, for things
like Best Loser or Best Annos.

> The reasons for having a table?
5. Enhance gameplay in general
6. Add mission-based play (for deities running thematic games)

Dex

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

In article <27fabeab.0410182337.7bc55113@posting.google.com>,
wahbit <wahbitc@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The poll posted by Pat brings me to the question of a League table for
>Empire in General. There used to be a historical list of top players
>on the wolfpack site, but that has gone.

The last time there was an actual ranking of any kind on the main
Empire site was before Wolfpack came into being. You can check out
an historical archive of that page here:
http://www.wolfpackempire.com/PEA-1997/hall.html

Wolfpack did have a page listing various countries and what their
history was (sketchy) and some of the games they had won. But,
that's as far as that went.
http://www.wolfpackempire.com/WolfpackEmpireSite-2003/champions.html


>This would of course mean more work for Wolfpack, and any system would
>have to have their blessing!

No, it wouldn't

Empire, the server, is open source. I tend to administer Wolfpack
as a whole with the same ethos. If you want to do something in
Empire, do it. You don't need Wolfpack's blessing to do it. That
doesn't mean the Wolfpack people, including me, won't say something
in opposition to it. But, you are very welcome to do it.

You could create the rankings and post them periodically on this
newsgroup, say once every month or two. Pretty much everybody in
this community reads this newsgroup anyways, so it will see as
much distribution as it would on the Wolfpack website.

When I created my ranking system, I received a fair bit of friction
from the then current Wolfpack administration. I pressed on anyways,
and posted the rankings at least once, possibly twice. I then
decided to pull the plug on the system for a number of reasons.

So, if you want to do it, just go ahead and do it! I think your
system proposal has merit in that players do not risk losing
points by playing a game. In fact, it encourages playing (one
of the drawbacks of my system was that it could discourage play).
You will get substantial friction from long time players who
are concerned about not getting credit for games older than
three years. But, I don't think there's a ranking/rating system
that does not have some kind of drawback.


-Geoff
aka Mithrilien

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

OK guys, I have done a quick ratings based on the following:

For each game, the top player in the power chart receives x points,
where x=number of players, the second player receives x-1, etc.
However, players who don't even rate in the power chart get 1 point
only, and those in the chart with no sectors get 2 points.

For each game there are 10 victory bonus points, to be divided equally
amongst the winning alliance (rounded up). Eg if solo winner, gets 10
bonus. If 4 in alliance, get 3 points each.

The following score incorporates these games (2001-2004): Intro
Petting Zoo, Retro Empire, Havok I+II, Pangaea, Midshipman I+II,
Newbie I+II+III, Iceworld 2-5 and Ogre. Not included are LOTR I+II and
StarWars I+II. LOTR would be worth a lot of points due to the large
number of players, but as I do not know who was whom I have not
included them.

Other points to note are: Some players may have used different names
(and also different players may have used the same names!). If you
want to get your points under one name, email me on
wahbitc@hotmail.com to tell me which names to join up. I have not
separated out solo and team players. This can prob only be done
prospectively. You will note that the system rewards frequent play.
beep is currently no 1 and Shakespeare no 2.

I might include LOTR and SW later if more people want to tell me who
they were (I actually know most of the winners, but best to be fair to
be everybody). This would probably significantly alter the results.

Here are the rankings and score (only those with score 3+ included):
2001-2004

beep 88
Shakespeare 80
Pern 75
Draenor 73
Ragnarook 72
Thistle 69
Wahbit 50
Kamoria 47
Pax 44
Armengar 40
Ski 39
976-SHEEP 38
IndustMech 37
Zirconia 37
Stardust 36
Savoia 33
Pendor 32
DexterPV 31
Tanugi 30
..com 30
Bananaland 29
NamNam 29
PaineWebb 29
Cathouse 28
Kurszlic 28
Lowland 27
Spam 27
Kialune 26
Niflheim 26
Unemployed 26
KingJohan 25
Rook 25
Resvon 24
Myseria 23
OrionSyndicate 23
Libya 23
Cochise 22
Parpara 22
Parphos 22
Unknown 22
Wicked 22
Hackensac 22
Arcadia-2 21
Limbo 21
Latveria 21
BlackBox 20
Utopia 20
^^^ 19
Manethrin 19
Temekula 19
Calcium 19
Fish 18
Aquataine 17
fishing_nation 17
Venaus 17
Synchron 17
DrJellyfish 16
Dunbar 15
Junta 15
SalManilla 15
Aberdeen 14
Doorbell 14
ToyMachine 14
Vailgulf 14
Zern 14
Diudeland 13
DPRK 13
Coyote 12
Helepolis 12
Uruk 12
X 12
Czechoslovakia 11
Max 11
SilentBob 11
Carcinoma 10
Raist 10
Vaujany 10
BlackHole 9
Jabberwocky 9
No-man 9
Somewhere 9
The Moot 9
Zapotek 9
NenHamste 8
People's Republic 8
TZIA 8
Mizar 7
RimFire 7
Ringworld 7
Sparta 7
Damogram 6
Oleander 6
Perdition 6
PromisedLand 6
betelgeuse 5
Bwian 5
Hades 4
Land_of_Faa 4
Shire 4
Blimp 3
Hades 3
Mithrilien 3
Nuke_em 3
wesland 3

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

wahbit wrote:
> OK guys, I have done a quick ratings based on the following:
>
<snip>

Wow. Good job? could you email me the break down (i.e points, for which
game they played). I would like to plug those numbers into a DB and put
a page together for the community. scottz_nospam@gamesagacity_nospam.net

Also, maybe games for points should be "registered" as a points game
that way everyone knows how many points are at stake.

Also, maybe the victory points should be based on number of players (i.e
numplayers=victory points, or 2*numplayers). Victory should give the
most points. Plus, kinda like NASCAR and such, leading (even if for only
a turn) should give a point or 2. Maybe number_of_turns_survived (based
on how many turns the game lasted).

Just some ideas. What do you think?

Scott

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

The points system I used was based on
1. Ranking on the power chart. The points allocated are dependent on
the number of players.
2. Winning the game. 10 points for a "win"

The top player in the power chart receives x points, where x=number of
players, the second player receives x-1, etc. Eg, If there are 11
players, then top ranked player gets 11 points, second player 10
points, 3rd player 9 points, 4th player 8 points,etc. If there are
only 4 players, the top player only gets 4 points, second 3 points. So
the more players there are, the more points in that game, increasing
exponentially. However, if you started the game but did not make it
into the final power chart, you only get one point. If you were in the
chart with no sectors, you only get 2 points, irrespective of your
position.

Additional points are allocated for a "win". As the 10 "win" bonus
points are divided up amongst the winning alliance, this should
encourage solo wins. Would be nice to have other bonus points, but
victory must still be main priority. I couldn't give out bonuses in a
retrospective sytem, not having been the deity for any of them.

I have the results in an excel file. You could display the entire file
so that the results are open and transparent to all. Will email to
you. Hope to be able to include LOTR I+II and SW I+II in it if I find
out a bit more about who was which country.

Here is an example of points given for one game, using Newbie 2

PLAYER RANKING POINTS WIN POINTS TOTAL POINTS
Pax 13 5 18
Pern 12 12
Armengar 11 5 16
Carcinoma 10 10
BlackHole 9 9
People's Republic 8 8
RimFire 7 7
Damogram 6 6
betelgeuse 5 5
Shire 2 2
Diondega 2 2
Irons 2 2
PeckMoth 1 1

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

In article <27fabeab.0410220704.2011310e@posting.google.com>,
wahbit <wahbitc@hotmail.com> wrote:
>OK guys, I have done a quick ratings based on the following:
>
>Other points to note are: Some players may have used different names
>(and also different players may have used the same names!).

The latter is a lot less common, but the former is quite common.
Back in the old days, players used a single country name for all
their games. That's rare these days.

Outcome; the 'accuracy' of this list is questionable. I can see
at least one country that is listed under three separate names,
and should be in 7th place, rather than the smattering of far
lower places it has. Another outcome of this style list; beep
is virtually guaranteed of being in first. He is, by far, the
most experienced player in Empire history. My own ranking system
database showed that, and his pattern has continued. This ranking
system rewards frequent play. beep plays more than anyone, and
virtually always plays under 'beep'. So, 1st place is a virtual
lock for beep in every posting of this system's results.

Not saying this is wrong per se...beep is good. Just that it
will always have beep as first.


>Here are the rankings and score (only those with score 3+ included):
>2001-2004
>
>beep 88
>Shakespeare 80
>Pern 75
>Draenor 73
>Ragnarook 72
>Thistle 69
>Wahbit 50
>Kamoria 47
>[...]



-Geoff
aka Mithrilien

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

As you had indicated, Bungy uses a few aliases. He has revealed them
to me, and now he tops the table. Am getting a few other names to
combine. Keep on emailing me with your aliases if you want to see
yourself higher in the table!

Here is the revised table for those with score of 20+, also including
Petting Zoo II. Games included are now: Intro PZ, PZII, Retro Empire,
Havok I+II, Pangaea, Midshipman I+II, Newbie I+II+III, Iceworld 2-5
and Ogre.

Have added number of games played, and number of wins.

PLAYER POINTS GAMES WINS

Bungholio 106 4 3
Shakespeare 98 5 1
beep 90 5 1
Thistle 83 5 2
Pern 75 5 2
Draenor 73 3 1
Ragnarook 72 3 0
Resvon 54 2 1
Wahbit 50 4 1
Kamoria 47 2 1
Pax 44 3 2
Armengar 40 5 2
Ski 39 1 1
Wicked 39 3 1
IndustMech 37 2 0
Zirconia 37 1 1
Limbo 36 4 0
Stardust 36 3 0
Aquataine 33 3 0
Savoia 33 3 0
Pendor 32 1 0
DexterPV 31 2 1
Tanugi 30 1 0
Bananaland 29 1 1
NamNam 29 1 0
PaineWebb 29 1 1
Cathouse 28 1 0
Kurszlic 28 2 0
Lowland 27 1 1
Rook 27 2 0
Spam 27 1 0
Kialune 26 2 0
Niflheim 26 1 1
Unemployed 26 3 0
KingJohan 25 1 1
Libya 23 1 0
Myseria 23 3 0
OrionSyndicate 23 3 0
Cochise 22 2 0
Hackensac 22 1 0
Parpara 22 3 0
Parphos 22 1 1
Arcadia-2 21 1 0
Latveria 21 1 0
BlackBox 20 1 1
Utopia 20 1 0

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Geoff Cashman" <theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in message
news:clbntk$kk5$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> ....Another outcome of this style list; beep
> is virtually guaranteed of being in first. He is, by far, the
> most experienced player in Empire history.

I doubt that; there were a hell of a lot more games before I started
playing. I may have played in more games than anyone else since
then, but there were a lot of classic games before then.

>... Just that it will always have beep as first.

This indicates that it is a very well thought-out ranking system. 🙂

The main problem with using the power chart for ranking is that
countries who may have been major players through most of the
game tend to get zero'd out in the endgame.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Gregory E. Garland" <geg1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7fred.6291$ta5.3292@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Geoff Cashman" <theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in
message
> news:clbntk$kk5$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> > ....Another outcome of this style list; beep
> > is virtually guaranteed of being in first. He is, by far, the
> > most experienced player in Empire history.
>
> I doubt that; there were a hell of a lot more games before I started
> playing. I may have played in more games than anyone else since
> then, but there were a lot of classic games before then.
>
> >... Just that it will always have beep as first.
>
> This indicates that it is a very well thought-out ranking system. 🙂
>
> The main problem with using the power chart for ranking is that
> countries who may have been major players through most of the
> game tend to get zero'd out in the endgame.


Agreed! Look what happened in PZ2... 20 players started... 8 *survived* to
endgame.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/bungholio/PettingZooTwo.html

I think some credit should go to the deities as well, since they
are staying active, yet not receiving any credit for their hard
work (since they are *not playing*). IceBarbie deserves
quite some recognition for his IW series, along with the
other active deities.

Bungy (who only deities with this name these days)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

In article <7fred.6291$ta5.3292@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Gregory E. Garland <geg1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Geoff Cashman" <theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:clbntk$kk5$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>>... Just that it will always have beep as first.
>
>This indicates that it is a very well thought-out ranking system. 🙂
>



-Geoff
aka Mithrilien

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

wahbit <wahbitc@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Have added number of games played, and number of wins.

Something is not correctly sorting your ranking:

> IndustMech 37 2 0
> Zirconia 37 1 1

Should be reversed offcourse.

> Limbo 36 4 0
> Stardust 36 3 0

Again.

> Bananaland 29 1 1
> NamNam 29 1 0
> PaineWebb 29 1 1

And yet again.

[a couple more snipped]

--

Daniel Tryba

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:17:48 +0000 (UTC),
theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) wrote:

>In article <7fred.6291$ta5.3292@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>Gregory E. Garland <geg1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>"Geoff Cashman" <theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in message
>>news:clbntk$kk5$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>>>... Just that it will always have beep as first.
>>
>>This indicates that it is a very well thought-out ranking system. 🙂
>>
>
>
>
>-Geoff
> aka Mithrilien

BEEP?

"What do you call a player with no arms,
no legs, and her neck in a noose?"

-anti-BEEP

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Dear all

I don't want this scoring system to be a source of unhappiness for
people. I've heard that disputes have already arisen. However because
of the interest, I feel that I should give another update or 2,
incorporating feedback and new data.

Before you look any further, please note that it is an imperfect
system! I have now included LOTR1 and LOTR2, but I do not have data on
a lot of countries as I do not know who they are. This heavily biases
the results, particularly as players in LOTR1 received up to 40
points. I have also credited corulers of co-ruled countries with their
divided share of the points (rounded up). Again, I could only do this
for countries I know were coruled.

If you are not as high up as you believe you deserve to be, please do
not be offended! Email me with your aliases and I would be pleased to
combine your results. Feel free to set up an alternate ranking
system. There are lots of different ways you can do it that would give
quite different results.

Below are 2 sets of rankings.
1. By total score
2. By mean score (ie score/games)

Results incorporating: Intro Petting Zoo, Retro Empire, Havok I+II,
Pangaea, Midshipman I+II, Newbie I+II+III, Iceworld 2-5, Ogre and
LOTR1+2 (known coruled countries removed from list).

Ranking by Total Score
Player Score Games Wins

Thistle 148 10 3
Bungholio 128 6 3
Pern 128 7 2
Wahbit 109 7 3
Ski 108 6 3
Rook 99 8 2
Shakespeare 98 5 1
Mongol Horde 95 6 2
beep 90 5 1
Kamoria 82 4 2
Stardust 77 6 0
Resvon 69 4 1
Harmless 65 3 0
Dexter 61 5 2
Pax 44 3 2
Diudeland 41 2 0
Armengar 40 5 2
Wicked 39 3 1
Unemployed 38 4 0
IndustMech 37 2 0
Limbo 36 4 0
Ice 34 2 2
Aquataine 33 3 0
Savoia 33 3 0
Pendor 32 1 0
Bananaland 29 1 1
NamNam 29 1 0
PaineWebb 29 1 1
Cathouse 28 1 0
Kurszlic 28 2 0
Lowland 27 1 1
Kialune 26 2 0
KingJohan 25 1 1
Libya 23 1 0
Myseria 23 3 0
OrionSyndicate 23 3 0
Hackensac 22 1 0
Parphos 22 1 1
Cochise 22 2 0
Parpara 22 3 0
Arcadia-2 21 1 0
Latveria 21 1 0
Manetheren 21 2 0
Utopia 20 1 0



Ranking by Mean Score (Minimum 2 games)
(Note that full points were given for players in a co-ruled country
for this calculation, so as not to unfairly penalize them)

Player Mean Score
Ski 31.17
Mongol Horde 29.00
Bungholio 24.83
Rook 24.00
Thistle 23.38
Harmless 21.67
Wahbit 20.57
Diudeland 20.50
Kamoria 20.50
Shakespeare 19.60
IndustMech 18.50
Pern 18.29
beep 18.00
Resvon 17.25
Dexter 17.20
Ice 17.00
Pax 14.67
Kurszlic 14.00
Kialune 13.00
Wicked 13.00
Stardust 12.83
Cochise 11.00
Aquataine 11.00
Savoia 11.00
Manetheren 10.50
Unemployed 9.50
Limbo 9.00
Armengar 8.00
Myseria 7.67
OrionSyndicate 7.67
Parpara 7.33

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

You really need to add in something for the deities.

> Ice 34 2 2
> Parpara 22 3 0

I did not see Mithrillian in the list.

Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

In article <clqog8$l1j$1@home.itg.ti.com>,
Tom Johnson <1234tjohnsonREMOVE1234@telogy.com> wrote:
>
>You really need to add in something for the deities.
>
>> Ice 34 2 2
>> Parpara 22 3 0
>
>I did not see Mithrillian in the list.
>

That's because 'Mithrillian' doesn't exist

Mithrilien's played just one game solo over the three year scope of
Wahbit's ranking system. That was one of Bungy's petting zoo games.
I didn't win, conceeding the victory to Doorbell around update
18/19 on a 25 update limited game.

I do play a lot as a co-ruler, but not solo. I just don't have
the time for solo efforts.

Related news; my baby-yet-to-be-born just passed AFP-4
(http://tinyurl.com/66n34) and Level 2 Ultrasound
(http://tinyurl.com/3uxkl) tests with flying colors! Woohoo!

-Geoff
aka Mithrilien

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

> You really need to add in something for the deities.
>
> > Ice 34 2 2
> > Parpara 22 3 0
>
> I did not see Mithrillian in the list.

Yes I agreebeen agonising over this.

The best suggestion I have had from somebody is to give a deity score
based on number of players. I might make it a score = to half the
number of players. That will bring Mith and Ice up near the top.
Giving score = to number of players would be too much.

Any other suggestions?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

In article <27fabeab.0410281350.5cf2b686@posting.google.com>,
wahbit <wahbitc@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You really need to add in something for the deities.
>>
>> > Ice 34 2 2
>> > Parpara 22 3 0
>>
>> I did not see Mithrillian in the list.
>
>Yes I agreebeen agonising over this.
>
>The best suggestion I have had from somebody is to give a deity score
>based on number of players. I might make it a score = to half the
>number of players. That will bring Mith and Ice up near the top.
>Giving score = to number of players would be too much.
>
>Any other suggestions?


Score as a deity has little do with with ability as a player.
"Success", especially as a deity, is very subjective. I've had
some players rave about Retro, and others complain.

-Geoff
aka Mithrilien

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

wahbitc@hotmail.com (wahbit) wrote in message

<snip cool idea>

I'm not a fan of a calculated rating. How "good" you are isn't very
easily reflected in this. I'd prefer giving each diety a set amount
of points depending on number of players and let them divy it out how
they choose, or by rules that they state at the begining of the game.
Maybe x + x-1 + x-2 + x-3... where x is the number of players.

Mark

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Geoff Cashman" <theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in message
news:clrqu3$84p$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <27fabeab.0410281350.5cf2b686@posting.google.com>,
> wahbit <wahbitc@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> You really need to add in something for the deities.
> >>
> >> > Ice 34 2 2
> >> > Parpara 22 3 0
> >>
> >> I did not see Mithrillian in the list.
> >
> >Yes I agreebeen agonising over this.
> >
> >The best suggestion I have had from somebody is to give a deity score
> >based on number of players. I might make it a score = to half the
> >number of players. That will bring Mith and Ice up near the top.
> >Giving score = to number of players would be too much.
> >
> >Any other suggestions?
>
>
> Score as a deity has little do with with ability as a player.
> "Success", especially as a deity, is very subjective. I've had
> some players rave about Retro, and others complain.
>
> -Geoff
> aka Mithrilien
>

Yes, but the system being used by Wahbit rewards those
actively playing. If you are running games, you cannot
be playing actively. Also, regardless of whether players
like a game or not, they signed up and they played.

Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Mark Stokje wrote:
> wahbitc@hotmail.com (wahbit) wrote in message
>
> <snip cool idea>
>
> I'm not a fan of a calculated rating. How "good" you are isn't very
> easily reflected in this. I'd prefer giving each diety a set amount
> of points depending on number of players and let them divy it out how
> they choose, or by rules that they state at the begining of the game.
> Maybe x + x-1 + x-2 + x-3... where x is the number of players.
>
> Mark

Hm. Maybe, but the problem with that is bias. There is no bias in a
calculated method. The points don't reflect how "good" you are - only
how well you performed in this game, against the other players in that
particular game. How "good" you are would be reflected in your average
score - reflecting consistent results. The points reflect your ability
in that particular context. You may not be as "good" based on another
scoring method.

That being said, there doen't have to be one method. There could be a
couple of ranking systems that are weighted or reflect different aspects
of the game. One could say, "I'm ranked 15 in wahbits system, but 12 in
whatsit's system". Each one would mean something differnt.

Whenever I see scoring systems that have a subjective element, I cringe
- b/c, personally, you can't really compare the results. There would be
some that felt the got a bum rap, and don't have confidence in the
ranking. Like I said, that's just my personal feelings.

gz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

>
> Good empire players can be made but great empire players are born.
>
>

And mostly old and/or unemployed.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

wahbit wrote:

>
> Any other suggestions?

Perhaps, with the assistance of others, oral and written, develop
several sets of empire rankings based on empire "eras", sort of like
comparing NFL (american football, but could probably be utilized by any
sport) players from past and present, who was a better linebacker, Dick
Butkus , Ray Nitchke (sp) or Mike Singletary, or Ray Lewis, or
quarterbacks or halfbacks or whatever...each era had its giants, and
Empire probably has some definable eras as well.

I know that Escher and Ice Barbarians Warlord would both rank very
highly, it's just that they haven't played recently, and names of
players I only got a small chance to meet Parsing for one (as Springa)
etc....

DE