[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
The biggest problem I could see from the winner reporting is in the case of a larger game where there might be months between when a particular person gets eliminated and when the eventual winner is decided. Not sure that's a huge deal though.

Something else that occured to me while reading the rules. Is there not some way this rating system could be modified to allow for team victories? Perhaps averaging the Ratings of the team winners and then splitting the resulting points between them. Maybe even a prorated split based on their comaprative rankings. Does that make sense?

It makes sense. Not sure the best way to go about it but what you said makes sense. After all, when people are working together for a victory, they all share in the rewards.

On the other hand, sometimes, teams are made later in the game when people are seeking to suck up, so to speak... .

Nevertheless, though, there is some advantage to teamwork and all of it counting toward a victory for all. Perhaps special games like that from the beginning, like the "Pairs" game?

So, if something like that happened, what if a guy with a rating of 1200 teamed with a guy who had a rating of 900? If I averaged the rating of the team (1050) and computed Ratings, would the person rated high be upset? Also, since the formula is based on individual comparisons, would a "team" rating skew things the wrong way?

Finally, would the players be willing to agree to this? Maybe lower-rated players would be willing agree to that but would higher-rated players agree? For example, in the Challenge Match you and several of us started a while back...Asmala is the dominant empire...and I know he is a great player but, (for example), I offered advice, produced the most research, and "sat in the back seat" helping him be so strong. NOT to take away from his playing ability but, would he be willing to "average" his rating with mine (and Lord Chane's) for some sort of team rating computation?