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.
Quote:
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