The Order of the Meeple

[danisthirty]

First, I'm not certain what the proposed method of recognition is. ? If I have an Order of the Meeple, how do others know it or see it? If it's contained in a sticky topic somewhere in the Forums, I am fine with that. If it is proposed as a banner or symbol or some such on public display on your profile panel adjacent to your avatar, etc. then I am not in favor of that. Any recognition there should be generic in nature. Such as the Merit system, which is generic. Or the Author banner, or Admin banner, etc. Those are generic in that they do not qualify who the best Author or Admin is, or who got the best Merits for what good work, etc. In keeping, any recognition there must be in a generic form - such as some symbol that indicates you have participated in some online play.

There's no intention of doing this. As much as anything else, special banners or avatars won't be of interest to those who don't take part in the online games so there's no reason to make this public to the rest of the site. The entire system is intended to be kept local to the online play side of things so aside from a sticky thread logging who's what (as you've suggested) and perhaps the odd secret handshake here and there, I don't consider anything beyond this as being necessary.

Second, It seems odd to lump in the weekly online games with any recognition system. Putting aside the logistics and time zone issues of putting those games together, the nature of them is more casual than league play, and so subjective in outcome and player fancy that it would seem to preclude any measure of sheer ability.

The reason for the inclusion of this was that Carcassonne isn't purely a 2-player game. It plays very well with just one opponent and this is how I like it best, but the basic game comes with five different colours of meeple for a reason. I argued that the results of weekly games were relevant to the Order of the Meeple and should count as achievements at some levels because we don't currently have any other way of tracking how players perform against more than one opponent. I agree that the influence of luck increases with number of players and as such it isn't a direct indicator of player skill. But in all games I've taken part in, everyone is playing to win and the tactics are different enough in these games as to make them worth recognising in my opinion.

I'm aware that this doesn't help with the time zone problem for those of us outside of Europe, and I don't really have an answer to that at the moment. I'm sure we will be able to find a solution that suits everyone though, so please don't let this be a barrier for you.

Third, The points differential requirements should be excluded or at least greatly altered. This is purely about style of play and strategy. Speaking for myself, there is a strategy of play in attempting to keep scoring completely muted. Each, or any, game is not necessarily a race to some high score. It's a struggle to score more than the other player. There are different methods for achieving this that straight point differential recognition does not take into account. Requiring a game to be won by X points in order to achieve a particular level is no less arbitrary than requiring one to be won by less than 5 say.

I agree with what you've explained here. But if you strip out some of the little extras that have been contested by various forum members, what you're left with is a very short list of criteria at each level which revolves predominantly around finishing position in various tournaments. This might be fine for some people, but what we wanted to do was to provide a range of different goals and targets for people to aim for. For example, I might have missed my chance of finishing in the top half of whichever tournament but with two matches left I might still have a chance of finishing the tournament with a score differential of 100 points or more so there's still everything to play for.

With this in mind, and considering that we wanted the Order of the Meeple to be something that could be enjoyed by as many players as possible, with a wide range of skills, the fun is supposed to stem from the variety of achievements and the fact that they encourage players to become well-rounded rather than simply someone who can finish consistently well. In short, it isn't purely about how "good" a player is. You're one of this forums top players and there can be no arguing with that. But if achieving some of the higher levels requires experimenting with different tactics or styles of play in order to satisfy some of the criteria from time to time then is that really so bad? I don't think it is, hopefully you don't either.

[Jéré]

May I suggest a threshold for points differential? I have in mind minus 200. Such threshold would be some sort of safety net that would prevent some of our dear participants to fall into the abyss and still have a fair chance to come back and kick our arses.

[Carcking]

May I suggest a threshold for points differential? I have in mind minus 200. Such threshold would be some sort of safety net that would prevent some of our dear participants to fall into the abyss and still have a fair chance to come back and kick our arses.

Can you elaborate on this Jere? What is meant by a threshold of minus 200?

But if achieving some of the higher levels requires experimenting with different tactics or styles of play in order to satisfy some of the criteria from time to time then is that really so bad? I don't think it is, hopefully you don't either.

Haha - I knew your position Dan. I knew you would suggest this   That's why I suggested preemptively that requiring someone to win by say 50 points is as arbitrary as requiring someone to win by less than 5 points - neither of which is necessarily a criteria demonstrating a high level of play. If it's about altering our play style to demonstrate we have what it takes to successfully implement various tactics and play styles, we all aught to be comfortable with either scenario...and perhaps others. A straight points differential (high or low) is not necessarily a good indicator of anything.

[Jéré]

May I suggest a threshold for points differential? I have in mind minus 200. Such threshold would be some sort of safety net that would prevent some of our dear participants to fall into the abyss and still have a fair chance to come back and kick our arses.

Can you elaborate on this Jere? What is meant by a threshold of minus 200?

It simply means that one cannot go lower than -200 for the score differential (ie. Final score diff. calculated at the end of a league/tournament) . I think it is low enough...

If you reach -200 then I suggest to stop counting which means you can only improve yourself in the next tournament or league. If your score differential is again negative then you stay at -200.

I guess we don't need a maximum.

[Carcking]

It simply means that one cannot go lower than -200 for the score differential (ie. Final score diff. calculated at the end of a league/tournament) . I think it is low enough...

If you reach -200 then I suggest to stop counting which means you can only improve yourself in the next tournament or league. If your score differential is again negative then you stay at -200.

I guess we don't need a maximum.

I see, so that proposal would eliminate the upper end "goal" requirement, but require a minimum threshold which is needed to qualify, that is somewhere below zero? That could work.

So in application - let's say your in a league scenario and you've lost a couple of matches by a moderate margin, but won the majority of your matches. This proposal would have established a min. target that you would need to bring your point differential up to in order to qualify, even if it was still negative. It would still give you a target level of performance for your final matches, but at the same time not require you to maintain some high positive point differential. I think that's more equitable...I might have to think on it more.

[jungleboy]

It simply means that one cannot go lower than -200 for the score differential (ie. Final score diff. calculated at the end of a league/tournament) . I think it is low enough...

If you reach -200 then I suggest to stop counting which means you can only improve yourself in the next tournament or league. If your score differential is again negative then you stay at -200.

I guess we don't need a maximum.

I see, so that proposal would eliminate the upper end "goal" requirement, but require a minimum threshold which is needed to qualify, that is somewhere below zero? That could work.

Unless I am misunderstanding you (Carcking), I don't think this is what Jéré meant. He means that your differential can't go below -200. So if your actual differential is -400, it still counts as -200. That way, you can't dig yourself so big a hole that it's impossible to climb out of. This would solve the problem of having a player start off quite poorly in a tournament or two and accumulate a massive negative points differential, whereby it would be very hard to get this back to a positive number, let alone the target numbers for red and black.

[danisthirty]

But if achieving some of the higher levels requires experimenting with different tactics or styles of play in order to satisfy some of the criteria from time to time then is that really so bad? I don't think it is, hopefully you don't either.

Haha - I knew your position Dan. I knew you would suggest this   That's why I suggested preemptively that requiring someone to win by say 50 points is as arbitrary as requiring someone to win by less than 5 points - neither of which is necessarily a criteria demonstrating a high level of play. If it's about altering our play style to demonstrate we have what it takes to successfully implement various tactics and play styles, we all aught to be comfortable with either scenario...and perhaps others. A straight points differential (high or low) is not necessarily a good indicator of anything.

I take your point about this and quite like the idea of an achievement based on winning by only a very small margin purely because it represents a high level of control over the game in order to succeed in that. I do feel that further explanation in general is necessary though...

One thing that has surprised me a little bit about this thread has been the number of ways that people have interpreted it. All of them equally valid, but not always in the same way as it was originally intended. This is my fault as it's since become apparent that there were a number of things I wasn't clear on when I initially set it out, but I think these are gradually being disambiguated one by one.

So please allow me to just say that what the Order of the Meeple isn't, is a long-winded, elaborate way of saying that someone is better than someone else at playing Carcassonne. A list of scores and statistics could provide some indication of this, but that isn't a lot of fun, nor is it particularly engaging for those who like to take part regularly.

So what is the Order about? Well, first and foremost it's supposed to be fun, and it's supposed to be something that everyone can take part in. It isn't designed so that those at the higher levels can look down on those at the lower levels and the last thing I want is for anyone to feel offended by it because they feel that they might not be able to reach the top rank, or that they are in any way inferior to anyone else because of where they end up. I genuinely believe that with perseverance, anyone should be able to reach any level and I look forward to celebrating each step of their journey with them, regardless of whether it takes them 6 months or 5 years to get there.

So whilst some of the required achievements at some of the higher levels aren't necessarily a direct measure of skill or performance, what they do provide is a goal; something to aim for. Getting 7 meeples onto the same farm won't necessarily win you a game of Carcassonne but I'm sure we've all tried it at least once just for the sake of saying that we did it! The challenges get increasingly intense towards the higher levels, but this is to be expected as the players who are going for them have already proved what they're capable of thus far. However, as I believe MrNumbers pointed out in an earlier post, specific achievements (such as Carcking's win in the World Cup) can be reused as many times as necessary. They aren't "used up" once you've submitted them against some criteria, and they remain available to be used again at subsequent level wherever they're valid.

I apologise that this has turned into a bit of a rambly reply, and that I haven't really answered any questions in the process! I guess I'm just surprised that more people aren't as excited about this as I am, and so am keen to explain it in as much detail as possible if this helps to get more people on board. 

[danisthirty]

It simply means that one cannot go lower than -200 for the score differential (ie. Final score diff. calculated at the end of a league/tournament) . I think it is low enough...

If you reach -200 then I suggest to stop counting which means you can only improve yourself in the next tournament or league. If your score differential is again negative then you stay at -200.

I guess we don't need a maximum.

I see, so that proposal would eliminate the upper end "goal" requirement, but require a minimum threshold which is needed to qualify, that is somewhere below zero? That could work.

Unless I am misunderstanding you (Carcking), I don't think this is what Jéré meant. He means that your differential can't go below -200. So if your actual differential is -400, it still counts as -200. That way, you can't dig yourself so big a hole that it's impossible to climb out of. This would solve the problem of having a player start off quite poorly in a tournament or two and accumulate a massive negative points differential, whereby it would be very hard to get this back to a positive number, let alone the target numbers for red and black.

This was my understanding of Jere's post too. I took it that his suggestion was that -200 is the lowest anyone's Career Score Differential can reach. This seems like a good idea.

[Jéré]

Yes, this is what I meant. Jungleboy and Dan understood it. "Career Score Differential" is the term I should have used to avoid confusion. Sorry about that.

[jungleboy]

Second, It seems odd to lump in the weekly online games with any recognition system. Putting aside the logistics and time zone issues of putting those games together, the nature of them is more casual than league play, and so subjective in outcome and player fancy that it would seem to preclude any measure of sheer ability.

I'm aware that this doesn't help with the time zone problem for those of us outside of Europe, and I don't really have an answer to that at the moment. I'm sure we will be able to find a solution that suits everyone though, so please don't let this be a barrier for you.

Since we are now offering a Sunday (evening European time) game, this could be more accessible to the North American players than the Thursday game, if they happen to have a Sunday afternoon with nothing to do. Of course, the other option is that several of the North American players could try to arrange a regular game in a good time slot for them. And maybe that time slot could suit Andrew the Ambo or other players in different time zones as well.

[Andrew the Ambo]

Yes as unfortunately a Sunday night game is Monday morning here and I wonder what my boss would say about me playing online during work hours.

[jungleboy]

Yes as unfortunately a Sunday night game is Monday morning here and I wonder what my boss would say about me playing online during work hours.

If he knew how great a game Carcassonne is, I'm sure he would be fine with it. Why don't you introduce him to it?

[Paul]

Hi guys.

First, I must apologize for my outburst. I was expecting something else and got this instead it caught me by surprise.

Second, I want no record of me to be kept for this Order.

[danisthirty]

Yes as unfortunately a Sunday night game is Monday morning here and I wonder what my boss would say about me playing online during work hours.

If he knew how great a game Carcassonne is, I'm sure he would be fine with it. Why don't you introduce him to it?

Exactly! Doesn’t your boss know how important it is to make sure his employees are happy at work?

[danisthirty]

First, I must apologize for my outburst. I was expecting something else and got this instead it caught me by surprise.

Apology accepted. Apologies to you too if I ever gave the impression that this was going to be anything else. I can’t think that I did, but that’s not to say I didn’t.

Second, I want no record of me to be kept for this Order.

That’s disappointing, but if it’s what you want I will certainly respect your wishes.