Suggesting a new VP awarding system

Post by **gm_al** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:45 am

Its no problem to have separate ratings for WOK4, WOK5, WOK99 etc. - and one that reads "COMPOSITE RATING" which is an average of all ratings. KaoBase V2 will be the ideal place to handle this.

Ratings are what I consider to be "small rewards". Played well, never missed a Turn ? Your rating will show it, even if you didnt get to reap in a VP this time.

Time to start a new thread on what should be in the ratings I guess. Let us try how it works out, and Im sure we can refine it a bit later on (or even drop it if we dont like it at all).

Post by **ThinKing** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 6:13 pm

Bjorn wrote:Just for grins, I sorted the excell spreadsheet by current rating and deleted some of the columns. You can see how many completed games each person has signed up for since I took over and their current rating.

www.angelfire.com/ny4/gmtom/wokratings.htm

I like this system.

How about a column for "Points Gained This Year"? I think I might even be top of that one!

TK

Post by **gm_al** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:04 pm

Yeah, so stop that BS talking about "last game I will play".

I FORBID YOU TO LEAVE WOK. IF I CAN STAY YOU CAN TOO !!

And Im not eager to lose my oldest Player, understood ??

Post by **Egbert** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 12:49 am

Hear hear!

Don't worry Al, we're not letting him leave the Library.

Underdog · Post by **Underdog** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 3:13 am

gm_al wrote: And Im not eager to lose my oldest Player, understood ??

I don't think TK qualifies as the OLDEST player.

Maybe he has been around longer than any of the rest of us but thats only because he was playing this game while still in diapers.

Post by **Hannibal** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:42 pm

Hmmmm, mugged. I'm going to post for a third time on this thread, to try and revive the debate and cunningly use REC (recency) to move the thread up from the graveyard area.

It started with my post suggesting a debate about a new VP system, so that more players and more newbies would feel enthused that they were ascending the ladder, instead of VP's mainly only for the usual few. (see first post).

It ended by moving lock, stock and barrel to a new thread on a rating system (qv), and 3 posts about TK (fine, no prob).

I wondered how on earth my proposal had so easily been hijacked into a thread on rating system, and the original point left stranded in the graveyard.... I felt I'd somehow been mugged (who was that masked Al?).

So, nil desperandum, I content-analysed how it was hijacked.

Apart from my own 2 posts, only 8 of the other 23 posts even mention the vp system.......Now, for the 12 people or so across the whole planet who'll ever read this, I can't expect you to read all the posts, so I'll summarise them (hey, too much time on my hands):
1. Han proposes sacrilege of tampering with vp system (see post...well worth reading, TIDSSM - hey I have to guess your IMVHO's, so you can guess that one! - anyone decipher it?).
2. LM opposes it, and says rating system would be good.
3. Val supports new vp's.
4. Sal supports, says Al will never agree.
5. Raw opposes, proposes rating system.
6. Al opposes, with weird analogy of paying bonuses to paid employees.
(Sal was right).
7. Donut opposes.
8-13. Raw, Funty, Raw, Trewqh, Funty, Bjorn, all on ranking/rating system.
14. Han tries desperately and vainly to get back to the original topic.
15. Donut opposes, with an ineffable: "I still believe that the entire point of the scoring system is to rank players for the eventual champs" (fine if you're happy to keep the community to about 60 actives worldwide!).
16. Al, consciously or by instinct, sets up a rhetorical dichotomy between ranking and rating, such that the debate is now between those rather than between vp's and rating/ranking!
17. Val talks ratings. (with a good point of splitting WOK4 and WOK5).
18. Sal on rating.
19. Mull supports, but accidentally clinches it with " "so many of you disagree with it [Han].....so ......rating...." . Hang on, 4 of us supported it and 4 opposed, so far, and 192 haven't commented yet....
20. SF on X-games.
21. Al switches it to a ratings thread, sensible but has the effect of leaving behind the subject title about new vp system....
22. TK/Gone on rating system.
23-25. Don't go, TK.

Hmm, mugged. Anatomy of a crime.

I have no enthusiasm for a parallel rating/ranking system, feel it is a poor sop to those of us who would make the central vp system (bound to be what really counts), more encouraging to a broader player base. I don't mind the rating system happening....a bit like batting averages stats, fine, but it dodged the original issue on vp's. You'll only feel you've arrived and started your long climb, if you score a few of what matters, not if some pooh-poohed average moves you up .1 or .2...and then down again.

So, instead of the unedifying spectacle of esteemed players fighting tooth and nail over the details of something they think won't matter anyway (crazy logic), let's have debate about the one that counts...the vp system. And I'll only regard it as debated if we have views from newbies who represent the future expanding base, not just from die-hards who benefit from the current exclusive system, or who think only in terms of 30 enthusiasts fighting it out for a place in the champs....

Let's hear some views on the original topic......especially from newbies - see the original post, and my second post, also worth reading, TIDSSM.

Post by **gm_al** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:59 pm

26. Han makes a lenghty review full of sarcastic and highly amusing comments and analogies. One has to admire his will and his writing skills - hmmmmm... a new WOK editor maybe ?

TIDSSM - This is definitely some smart message ??

Post by **Dameon** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:17 pm

I have no idea what TIDSSM means, but I like this idea. It's basically like the rating system (ducking Hannibal's irate blow) BUT without the RIP bonuses. That, I like. The only problem I see in implementation is that WOK has been going on for over 3 years now and some of us old folks are about 100 VPs short of where we would be under this new rating system, which by its nature would be more skewed towards the new generation.

Post by **korexus** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:41 pm

"though I do say so myself".

Man, when you have stats to do, anything's interesting...

korexus.

Goat Herder · Post by **Goat Herder** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:15 am

No-we couldn't possibly implement a system such as Hannibal has suggested. It would turn WOK on its head. Clans other than Brotherhood, Scholars & CON could end the year with something more than ZERO clan points. Whoops - CON has folded, but that doesn't matter. Anyway, it would actually make these other clans look, sort of, a bit successful, which we all know is completely false. All in all, I think it's a very bad idea put out false impressions to the community.

Goat Herder · Post by **Goat Herder** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:23 am

Time to talk seriously.

I think the suggested VP system certainly has some merits. The current system favours people working together --- one will have slept during the game, one often protects the other or has received protection from somebody else in the game, good negotiators.

That's fine for people who like to work together. A loner can very often play an excellent game, but rarely ever can they come away with VPs as they will finally get ganged up on.

Early aggressive players can often go very well, only to lose out when he gets ganged up on.

I think a system where VPs go further down the list is a good idea, as it offers the chance of VPs to all types of players --- the attackers, sleepers, loners, dirty-rotten backstabbers, not just the lucky mates who decide to team up at the end-game.

While I don't agree fully with the points he suggested, I think it has merits wirth discussing.

Goat herder

Post by **ThinKing** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:47 pm

I agree with Goat Herder.

It would be certainly interesting to see what happens to the HiScore.

Although, as always, there is the danger of people playing in every game they can and doing better than infrequent players who win a lot. We have that problem now. Look at this year's Champs line-up;

Raw,
Funty,
AF,
Smashie,
Korexus.

When was the last time we had a (non-beginner) group with none of those guys in it?!?

SmashFace · Post by **SmashFace** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:57 pm

um TK i have been in like 6 games this past year. so i don't think including me in this category is really intelligent. right now i am dead in 1 game, and haven't started another, with 3 groups open and me not in any... good argument

Raw · Post by **Raw** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:22 pm

Sorry Gone/TK.

You can't be a VP whore if you don't play?

BTW - you forgot to mention Massi, who is in everygame

.

-Raw

Post by **ThinKing** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:46 pm

OK, sorry Smashie. Reputations die hard.

Replace SF with Massi, then. Or perhaps Trewqh.

You see my point though. Right?

Raw · Post by **Raw** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:47 pm

I see your point.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:50 pm

Raw wrote:Sorry Gone/TK.

You can't be a VP whore if you don't play?

BTW - you forgot to mention Massi, who is in everygame .

-Raw

But somehow he doesn't seem to be winning any of those wok 4 games lately...i wonder why.

Post by **Donut** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:05 pm

I told you to take off that big Bullseye you're wearing Raw. You got everyone gunnin for you now, just look at my game

Donut

Raw · Post by **Raw** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:09 pm

That freaking bullseye is right in the middle of my back where I can't quite reach!

Oh well...I'll just have to make sure to hide in the woods and mountains and hope they don't see me.

-Raw

Post by **korexus** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:44 pm

Gone wrote:Replace SF with Massi, then. Or perhaps Trewqh.

Replace him with someone who didn't make the champs? That doesn't seem to back up your case very much...

If you look at the high score for 2003, you'd be hard pushed to pick 5 players who are still considered 'active' for which you couldn't say at least one of them had been in any given non-beginner game recently. There are only 34 people on it, total and 10 players go into each game so it's not really surprising.

korexus.