The Worlds of Kaomaris

I'm about to start setting up a rating system for WoK-On and thought I'd use that as an excuse to bring up old arguments. The rating system was meant to be on trial for a year before we reviewed it, as it's been well over a year now, let's review!

Things to consider are; (In order of how much they're going to annoy me)
Treatment of players who go M-3,
What to do about games which start with fewer than 10 players,
Whether to give bonuses for killing all players or just the first 5 or what,
numbers,
Anything else that anyone wants to bring up.

WoK-On is pretty much good to go now, there is even a basic (and GM editable) commentary as well as a houserules page and the option to call for a vote to end the game. All I need is for Rune to set up the cron job (hint!) and I think we can start a proper game!


Chris.

Ok, what a coinky-dink...

In my group 09 Doverish went M-3. Aussie Gaz proceeded to gobble up his former land a few turns later. Should he get the RIP bonus for it (as it still is one of the first 5 RIPs). I say yes (but obviousely I'm not supreme chancellor of WOK).

The other thing is the "First 5 kills clause." I vote for a definite removal of this rule. 1. It's annoying as hell for GM's (or more often myself) to figure out the first 5 RIPs and give bonuses accordingly. In my opinion a RIP is a RIP.

Donut

Donut wrote:Ok, what a coinky-dink...

In my group 09 Doverish went M-3. Aussie Gaz proceeded to gobble up his former land a few turns later. Should he get the RIP bonus for it (as it still is one of the first 5 RIPs). I say yes (but obviousely I'm not supreme chancellor of WOK).

No, it is not a RIP (in this case) if the player went M-3 before it happened. (you get the goodies, but not the bonus)

Yes, Doverish was M-3 and so can't be a RIP changing that would give me more headaches, not less. And it's dictator, not chancellor. Fool.

Points I'm more worried about are when does an M-3 player count as quit (I'd like to say on the turn they went M-1 but it's harder to programme...) And how many players to count for RIPs. (I'm shifting towards counting all of them.)

Any more input? Please?

As it is now players who go M-3 are considered killed on the first turn they missed. So if on turn 4 they miss their first, someone gets killed on turn 5, and they go M-3 on turn 6; the M-3 player is a slot lower than the RIPed player.

Donut

Ok, looking at this from a completely different perspective.

Now think of this logically...

Why should people who miss three turns be eliminated from the game?

The whole M-3 situation only brings problems i feel and doesn't solve anything.

It doesn't stop people from missing turns, because people who miss turns usually do so because basically they're not able to send in turns for that round.

The whole three round limit is also purely arbirtrary. Why not 4 rounds, why not 6 or 10?

And for all you conservatives who hate any rule change, because it's a change from the old ways, answer me this question.

If we get rid of the whole nonsensical m-3 stuff, what harm would that bring to the game?

Right, no harm it only benefits the game because people can keep playing. If Calidus after sadly having missed three turns in a row outside his fault in Stephen's 07, was allowed to continue the game he would still have been a potent force instead of now being eliminated by a stupid arbitrary rule.

So i say, lets get rid of the m-3 rule and the game will be better for it.

People who go M-3 are counted as quit because it makes life easier for the GM.
If a player has gone M-3 you can stop wodering whether you should delay the turn for them when you haven't got orders.
If you're calling for a vote, you don't need to wait for the reply of any M-3 players. (I feel this is important as I dislike the 'no vote counts as agreeing' idea, if you think about it you'll see it's worse than declaring a player quit after three turns.)

Players who can't make even one of three turns in a row are annoying to GMs and other players. - How would you like to try negotiating a NAP with a player who may or may not be in the game? Or how about discussing tactics with a clan mate? I think saying definitively that a player is out after a certain time is easiest on pretty much everyone, there may be a few casualties along the way but generally speaking if someone's missed three turns already then their chances of winning are getting small anyway...

I know you're too lazy to send in orders most of the time, stop trying to chamge the game to suit you!

Well with the new wok-on system everything is automated so it won't be an annoyance to the gm. A gm should officially not just wait for players unless they've asked for an extension so that's not a reason. And with the automated system it won't be possible either.

BTW no vote is a yes vote is always used and it works. Or do you always wait with a decision till you heard from absolutely everybody even if they don't even want to reply?

Anyway, you still haven't named a valid point Korexus...never took you for a good old conservative.

Saladin wrote:Well with the new wok-on system everything is automated so it won't be an annoyance to the gm. A gm should officially not just wait for players unless they've asked for an extension so that's not a reason. And with the automated system it won't be possible either.

You asked why the M-3 rule was around, I explained. Also it would probably be good if we could keep WoK-On in line with WoK V which is still run by people...

Saladin wrote: BTW no vote is a yes vote is always used and it works. Or do you always wait with a decision till you heard from absolutely everybody even if they don't even want to reply?

If you use this system then anyone having computer issues for just one turn will count as voting yes, which is surely worse than eliminating a player for missing three turns in a row. To answer you question, yes I do wait to hear from everyone and if someone hasn't replied by the time the next turn is due I count them as voting no. If they're going to dissapear they'll be M-3 in a couple of turns anyway and then they won't get a vote...

Saladin wrote: Anyway, you still haven't named a valid point Korexus...never took you for a good old conservative.

I feel that is a valid point, also I'm conservative enough to say 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Imho you haven't made a convincing argument that anything needs changing...

korexus.

I'm good.

Raw wrote:I'm good.

That's not what Donut's mom told Saladin the other day......

Allister Fiend wrote: That's not what Donut's mom told Saladin the other day......

Good one Allister!...

LOL

Hmmm.... This is a tough call. I definitely see Sals point that the M-3 isn't 100% necessary. Not sure I'm convinced that we should do away with it. Keep discussing... And not about my mother...

Donut

Donut, how's you mom doing? I hear AF couldn't quiet please her as well as you did.

Donut wrote:Hmmm.... This is a tough call. I definitely see Sals point that the M-3 isn't 100% necessary. Not sure I'm convinced that we should do away with it. Keep discussing... And not about my mother...

Donut

Is it just me or has Raw started regressing to his teenage years in the last few months?

Anyway, Kor marshalled some good arguments for M-3, but in addition to those, you also have to consider that there are games when up to five players go M-3. Without the M-3 rule, it's quite conceivable for a player to win 2 VPs only having to beat half the players who actually started the game, especially in WOK 4. I do have to admit, I've almost never had somebody go M-3 in a WOK 5 game, which is one of the reasons I am more partial to running them (along with the fact that the engine allows for a lot more rule variations).

In regards to the ratings, who cares? I mean, really? I think if anything has been proved over the last year it's that the players with more VPs will usually end up with better ratings, as well it should be. I don't really mind the ratings system, but I'll never support it as long as it has those random RIP bonuses thrown in. In regards to ratings and WOOKIE, if it can calculate them automatically I'm OK with any WOOKIE games I run being rated, as long as those ratings are never used to replace HiScore and Kaohalla as some people would no doubt prefer.

Is it just me or is Dameon being bitchy as usual?

My way or the highway.....

Highway is

nllnn

Wookie can calculate scores automatically, there will also be an option for a game not to be rated (although default will be rated) so that GMs don't have to have a game coun't for clan war, champs or personal reasons.

I just thought we should get any changes agreed before I spend loads of time coding the stuff!

korexus.