suggestion - more ranks
Moderator: Moderators
-
Lolsquad_Steven
- Posts: 488
- Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 17:55
Betalord, can't the server send out the real ingame time instead of the current rank for all players?
That way the different client's can use whatever rank system they want...
One good feature would be to have different counters for different mods... though I don't know how that should handle the already gathered time...
That way the different client's can use whatever rank system they want...
One good feature would be to have different counters for different mods... though I don't know how that should handle the already gathered time...
time: cannot and does not rate skill (i think the problem here is more a matter of skill than actual game time)
"victory:loss" ratio: makes people be bothersome when playing because they dont want to hurt their stats (and will create a lot of multiaccounts for this reason). v:l ratios and 4v4 games will be chaotic (even 2v2 will)
score system / elo-like: sounds complicated and probably is. in my opinion is better than v:l ratios (no ugly big loss number, good newbs are not newbs anymore, bad stars are not stars anymore), but shares some of its problems (like team play and fearing losing score). we could hide the numbers and show them with medals (like now with time)
achievement / award system: i think there is something like this in xbox live. there are set achievements (like winning +10 1v1 games, playing +50hours, top 5 in a tournament), when you accomplish one of them, it appears in your account information. we could also turn those medals into points or tiers for faster identification (ie playername has 3 Gold 5 Silver and 1 Bronze medals). this doesnt hurts if you play wrong and gives credit to your good play, but i think it is the hardest to mantain
ladder: ive never played ladder tournaments and dont know how they work exactly, but im not sure how versatile they are (as in rating games with different maps/players/teams), i cant defend/critique what i dont know
"victory:loss" ratio: makes people be bothersome when playing because they dont want to hurt their stats (and will create a lot of multiaccounts for this reason). v:l ratios and 4v4 games will be chaotic (even 2v2 will)
score system / elo-like: sounds complicated and probably is. in my opinion is better than v:l ratios (no ugly big loss number, good newbs are not newbs anymore, bad stars are not stars anymore), but shares some of its problems (like team play and fearing losing score). we could hide the numbers and show them with medals (like now with time)
achievement / award system: i think there is something like this in xbox live. there are set achievements (like winning +10 1v1 games, playing +50hours, top 5 in a tournament), when you accomplish one of them, it appears in your account information. we could also turn those medals into points or tiers for faster identification (ie playername has 3 Gold 5 Silver and 1 Bronze medals). this doesnt hurts if you play wrong and gives credit to your good play, but i think it is the hardest to mantain
ladder: ive never played ladder tournaments and dont know how they work exactly, but im not sure how versatile they are (as in rating games with different maps/players/teams), i cant defend/critique what i dont know
Radja wrote:
achievement / award system: i think there is something like this in xbox live. there are set achievements (like winning +10 1v1 games, playing +50hours, top 5 in a tournament), when you accomplish one of them, it appears in your account information. we could also turn those medals into points or tiers for faster identification (ie playername has 3 Gold 5 Silver and 1 Bronze medals). this doesnt hurts if you play wrong and gives credit to your good play, but i think it is the hardest to mantain
Zero Hour had a system like this. When you went into a 1v1 you got shown a stats page of your opponent, their wins, losses and all their medals
thats very very relative, after you learn the basics you get better and better untill you hit the best of you skill, then you need more specific ways to enhance your skills than just playing (artificial handicaps, discussing replays, etc)hunterw wrote:more often than not the more time you spend doing something the better you are at it.
over your natural best its not a matter of time but a matter of "work"
-
Dead.Rabit
- Posts: 264
- Joined: 03 Sep 2005, 04:28
i play xta. i cant talk about other mods but if ive played 100 hours of xta and then suddenly decide to move to AA then im gonna be obsolete
in other words ranks are useless unless they are mod specific or you know what mod the opposing player plays.
in other words. i know who is a good player and i know who is a bad player because ive seen the majority of xta players. anyone i havnt seen i assume is new to it. in my opinion its just something to brag about.
besides a shiny silver star is nice looking.
although i wouldnt mind seeing a few crowns. like one person is given said crown and when theyre beaten 1v1 the victor gets the crown. or if you break the record of the most games played undefeated then u get a crown.
D.R
p.s. also you cant become a good player by just playing. their is a natural level of skill involved, hardware is another issue. ... for instance someone with mouse buttons 4 + 5 can manage building spacing very quickly (i think theres a keyboard shortcut these days... i wouldnt know i have mouse buttons 4-5.. )
im just saying that a rank 4 can beat a rank 5...
in other words ranks are useless unless they are mod specific or you know what mod the opposing player plays.
in other words. i know who is a good player and i know who is a bad player because ive seen the majority of xta players. anyone i havnt seen i assume is new to it. in my opinion its just something to brag about.
besides a shiny silver star is nice looking.
although i wouldnt mind seeing a few crowns. like one person is given said crown and when theyre beaten 1v1 the victor gets the crown. or if you break the record of the most games played undefeated then u get a crown.
D.R
p.s. also you cant become a good player by just playing. their is a natural level of skill involved, hardware is another issue. ... for instance someone with mouse buttons 4 + 5 can manage building spacing very quickly (i think theres a keyboard shortcut these days... i wouldnt know i have mouse buttons 4-5.. )
im just saying that a rank 4 can beat a rank 5...
ok, how are you going to quantify "work" to give players rank?Radja wrote:thats very very relative, after you learn the basics you get better and better untill you hit the best of you skill, then you need more specific ways to enhance your skills than just playing (artificial handicaps, discussing replays, etc)hunterw wrote:more often than not the more time you spend doing something the better you are at it.
over your natural best its not a matter of time but a matter of "work"
don't say win/loss ratio please
i explained an elo-like system a couple of dozens posts earlier
each player has a score rating, when two players fight each other, they gain/lose points depending on the outcome of the match and the score gap between them
that way a low score player is highly awarded for winning high score players
high score players dont get (much) better rating by beating newbs
problems here:
cant rate teamplay very well unless its clan war and each clan have their rating (is free teamplay supported by any skillbased rating system anyway? still i think we could work it out using averages and proportions)
good players will fear fighting worse players, as can lose a lot but win little: i see 2 solutions for this, 1) freeze newbs ability to hurt others score until they have played some games (and their score is more realistic) and 2) make good players win/lose points at a slower rate. 2-b) have a little factor for free games and a bigger one for tournaments (so that you can gain a lot but win a lot more, to make them more interesting)
we could also add non rated "just for fun" games, to try stuff and / or lecture people about the game (or just to play stupidly)
its more complicated than not doing a thing: meh, anyway i think its a good solution in the long run, and we can always copy and adapt simplified elo mathematics into a lobby connected to a server with a database
if you dont like cold numbers, we could turn them into ranks, like rank 1 is for 0-500 points, rank 2 501-1000, etc, and have a /rating o /stats command for more details
pd: sorry for repeating myself
each player has a score rating, when two players fight each other, they gain/lose points depending on the outcome of the match and the score gap between them
that way a low score player is highly awarded for winning high score players
high score players dont get (much) better rating by beating newbs
problems here:
cant rate teamplay very well unless its clan war and each clan have their rating (is free teamplay supported by any skillbased rating system anyway? still i think we could work it out using averages and proportions)
good players will fear fighting worse players, as can lose a lot but win little: i see 2 solutions for this, 1) freeze newbs ability to hurt others score until they have played some games (and their score is more realistic) and 2) make good players win/lose points at a slower rate. 2-b) have a little factor for free games and a bigger one for tournaments (so that you can gain a lot but win a lot more, to make them more interesting)
we could also add non rated "just for fun" games, to try stuff and / or lecture people about the game (or just to play stupidly)
its more complicated than not doing a thing: meh, anyway i think its a good solution in the long run, and we can always copy and adapt simplified elo mathematics into a lobby connected to a server with a database
if you dont like cold numbers, we could turn them into ranks, like rank 1 is for 0-500 points, rank 2 501-1000, etc, and have a /rating o /stats command for more details
pd: sorry for repeating myself
