So, um, how will you handle different mods and people playing against smurfs?DemO wrote:The whole fucking basis of a ladder is elitism. THE TOP PLAYERS ARE MORE ELITE THAN THOSE AT THE BOTTOM. It's there to encourage competition and show the results so that people can judge just how elite they actually are.
suggestion - more ranks
Moderator: Moderators
Except unless it is game dependent and game limited, it won't even convey an accurate image of the ability in any particular game.
That, and I could care less about delusions of grandeur and a need for elitism. If you're going to play, find competitors through your own social talents, not though waving a number at your peers.
That, and I could care less about delusions of grandeur and a need for elitism. If you're going to play, find competitors through your own social talents, not though waving a number at your peers.
-
Spawn_Retard
- Posts: 1248
- Joined: 21 Dec 2006, 14:36
This sounds like a good idea for me. Off course there will be abuse, but we musnt always consider that everone will do anything to be the top guy like we are doing now...semi wrote:I think time-based ranks suck.
I propose a peer feedback system, where everyone can rate everyone else as:
a lot better than me
better than me
about equal
worse than me
a lot worse than me
Of course some people would rank everyone as a lot worse than me even if they suck themselves, but you could just look at the peer reviews from users that have good reputation. Oh and I propose a reputation system too :) So outside of skill, I'd let everyone rank everyone else as a:
very nice guy
nice guy
neutral
somewhat annoying
total idiot
And I'd rather play with nice guys than total idiots, not depending on their skill of play.
Remember that Tired will get a lot of votes there.manored wrote:This sounds like a good idea for me. Off course there will be abuse, but we musnt always consider that everone will do anything to be the top guy like we are doing now...semi wrote:I think time-based ranks suck.
I propose a peer feedback system, where everyone can rate everyone else as:
a lot better than me
better than me
about equal
worse than me
a lot worse than me
Of course some people would rank everyone as a lot worse than me even if they suck themselves, but you could just look at the peer reviews from users that have good reputation. Oh and I propose a reputation system too :) So outside of skill, I'd let everyone rank everyone else as a:
very nice guy
nice guy
neutral
somewhat annoying
total idiot
And I'd rather play with nice guys than total idiots, not depending on their skill of play.
I've always considered myself to be my own closest peer, and I think that I'm simply smashing. Oo
Props to the US system of justice, btw, where you're supposed to be judged by 12 of your "peers." With that understanding, your peers being of a similar mindset to yours, you'd universally be acquitted (unless you were the self-loathing type, but best then to be put outta your misery anyway).
Props to the US system of justice, btw, where you're supposed to be judged by 12 of your "peers." With that understanding, your peers being of a similar mindset to yours, you'd universally be acquitted (unless you were the self-loathing type, but best then to be put outta your misery anyway).
The thing is, I'd like to play games against about equal skill players than me. So I'd definitely rate players that are better than me, so later I can check if I did, if I just can't remember if I'm going to be owned or not.AF wrote:semi, your proposal is open to huge amounts of abuse.
And ontop of that there's the fact that people wont rate another person unless they won the agme and the person theyre rating lost.
Those ratings wouldn't and shouldn't be used to calculate an average.
Actually the idea is that I will rate you as a "total idiot" if you do so (no offence, as this isn't personal), and then I myself can just not look at the ratings you gave to other people, when I try to judge another players skill.TradeMark wrote:And when i lose, i rage-rate that s***head to the hell.semi wrote:I think time-based ranks suck.
I propose a peer feedback system, where everyone can rate everyone else as:
a lot better than me
better than me
about equal
worse than me
a lot worse than me
Just wont work.
This was the reason I wanted 2 scales, the skill and the respect scales.
So just don't look at the ratings given by anyone who you don't respect.
And basically this is what each and everyone of us does inside our heads. We just don't have a tool to write it down and automatically communicate to everyone.
And similar clumps of people who respect each other would happen here too, and it's the respectations and ratings going from/to outside that tightly-attached groups that are interesting to look at.Tired wrote:I've always considered myself to be my own closest peer, and I think that I'm simply smashing. Oo
Props to the US system of justice, btw, where you're supposed to be judged by 12 of your "peers." With that understanding, your peers being of a similar mindset to yours, you'd universally be acquitted (unless you were the self-loathing type, but best then to be put outta your misery anyway).
The whole system would quickly get complicated and would require an average of sorts to decipher the many conflicting results.
Also out the the cross section of the entire gaming playerbase for all RTS, I'd expect onyl a small fraction would actually give fair ratings the rest abusing or ignoring the system. Most players dont want to give a good rating to a guy thats just pwned them badly.
Also out the the cross section of the entire gaming playerbase for all RTS, I'd expect onyl a small fraction would actually give fair ratings the rest abusing or ignoring the system. Most players dont want to give a good rating to a guy thats just pwned them badly.
Yeah and that's why you'd only look at ratings from people that you respect and who you suppose will use fairly.AF wrote:The whole system would quickly get complicated and would require an average of sorts to decipher the many conflicting results.
Also out the the cross section of the entire gaming playerbase for all RTS, I'd expect onyl a small fraction would actually give fair ratings the rest abusing or ignoring the system. Most players dont want to give a good rating to a guy thats just pwned them badly.
The thing is, of course you would get conflicting paths, but you'd just resolve them by who do you trust more, not by any kind of average.
In the simplest case, you could only care about the ratings you gave yourself. Then you meet a player you didn't play before, but your friend played him, so you have a better idea. Etc...
Most players should be able to find very short chains of ratings to every other player, and for multiple chains to a single player, usually the shorter ones are better, and for very short ones, those who you trust more are better.
Basically if you want to make the system useful for yourself, it motivates you to rate other people. You don't get anything out of it, except that you can remember who you can beat and who not.
The system is totally immune to abuse, because you just ignore the ratings from untrustworthy players.
And if some players just ignore the system, so what, nobody loses.
Zydox: Is there a way to do that, which is actually simple to use, like doing multiple separate posts is? It's not like those multiple posts would take any more vertical space than a single one?
What if I as a new player come across a lobby regular who has 200 ratings. Most of which conflict. What do I do then?
Or, what if I'm a lobby regular and I look at a persons ratings but I dont need them because I'm familiar with them?
Or what if I see that I've been rated terribly by 30 ppl I dont know who're all smurfs and 1 good player gave me a good rnak which is buried at the bottom of a long list?
Or, what if I'm a lobby regular and I look at a persons ratings but I dont need them because I'm familiar with them?
Or what if I see that I've been rated terribly by 30 ppl I dont know who're all smurfs and 1 good player gave me a good rnak which is buried at the bottom of a long list?
Semi, think about it. If your regulatory mechanism for the system rests in the hands of the players, and is based on filtration by said players, it is no more than an overgrown formalization of how we really rate people now.
Like all other rating systems, it is going to be inaccurate, ineffective, clunky, and wasteful.
Like all other rating systems, it is going to be inaccurate, ineffective, clunky, and wasteful.
You kind of have totally grasped the idea in some way.neddiedrow wrote:Semi, think about it. If your regulatory mechanism for the system rests in the hands of the players, and is based on filtration by said players, it is no more than an overgrown formalization of how we really rate people now.
Like all other rating systems, it is going to be inaccurate, ineffective, clunky, and wasteful.
It's not overgrown, it's very simple to rate people.
The idea is exactly to replace something you do anyway in your head, since there's no way you are going to remember all those people, and this let's you use your friends ratings in addition to your own for cases where you haven't played someone.
And of course no ranking system is perfect, and you didn't say this one would be worse than the others.
What comes to "If you know the person anyway, you don't need the ranking." Well that is absolutely true in any ranking system. If you personally know someones skill by seeing him play, then you don't need to know the numbers. But the system helps you evaluate persons who you don't remember or know.
And what comes to "being buried down a long list", well if you want lists of your ratings, then first of all it's pretty pointless in any system to look at your own rating, but instead to compare your rating to others.
And as I've already said, you'd (automatically by the client for example) ignore ratings from people you don't respect enough.
I personally would have ripped out the current system a long time ago, and left it at that. Clans and locations and a buddy list are all reasonable, but whenever we discuss a rating system, we come to the same conclusion as a community - that it serves no purpose for noncompetitive players, and is a damn poor tool for competitive ones.