<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To continue, a Win is a TEAM WIN, and reliant on the other players. This goes against your holy cow ranking system, because ELO would rely on everyone on each team having roughly the same skill - which just isnt how NS works.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Either the system would have to rely entirely on everyone on each team having roughly the same generall skill, either it would have to rely entirely or at least partially on everyone on each team having roughly the same skill in each category. System A: players have about 200 points in their overall rank. System B: players have about 80 points in the category they're playing (that is to say Commander, Marines or Aliens)
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As we have tried to point out to you<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We? Are you speaking on the behalf of other persons or are you just megalomaniac?
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->, NS rewards supportive players, players that complement their team. I'm not sure how clued up you are, but in NS it's very hard to round up 12 players of equal skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's one of the reasons why a ranking system would fit the game perfectly.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Completely missunderstood" - afraid not, old bean. See, subcategories are going to have to cover this stuff, and that means stat padding. If you only get points when the team wins...... then why play Marines?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, young padawan, still misunderstood. You should play Marines, because you need points in all categories to achieve the highest possible rank. If you have no or few points in the Marines' category, you win points faster and you lose points slower in that specific category. Plus, you don't risk losing many points.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All that reliance on a Commander, you could play well all round and end up losing for no gain. Whereas with Aliens, there's no Commander and no problem. You further state that points are lost or gained on performance, so again we go back to having to decide what counts and in what situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never stated that points are lost or gained on performance.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Certainly, L4D seems to reward on a situational basis, but then it only has 2 sets of 4 players doing roughly the same job. Not quite the same as 2 different sets of 6 players pursuing different goals. Let's just reflect for a second. In the space of one post, you say that subcategories don't count, but that they do count. You've said K:D doesn't count, but that it will count. You've said that its all about W:L, but that the points will be handed out even if you lose. Forgive me, but your idea seems to be rapidly losing coherence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You don't understand why NS teamplay doesn't work the same as others, by your own admission. This is where the problem lies, chief. Not everything ranks like Chess does. NS allows a player to act defensively for the entire length of the game, and receive the same benefits as the most aggressive player on the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One of the advantages of the ranking system would exaclty be to actively encourage players to act defensively as well and reaping the exact same benefits as the most aggressive players on the team. This is what YOU don't understand.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It allows for a bunch of skilled Marines to save the day despite their middling (and sometimes meddling) Comm. RTS and FPS games reward cooperation, but there are very few that reward PURE support.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not very few. I'd say few or maybe even some. But, again, what does this have to do anything with the topic?
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Taking an ELO system as an example - if pubs play league players and win, their ranking shoots up exponentially. If the league guys win, their ranking barely moves. The reverse is true when considering losses (assuming other players are playing equals). Now break that down to an individual level - why would a high tier player want to jeopardise their ranking by potentially losing to a green recruit? Further, a league player plays only a fraction of the number of "proper" (and by that I mean gaming outside of training) games than a pubber will. This only further stacks the ranks in the pubbers favour, since he has more games against a wide variety of opponents - everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Conversely, the high tier player has fewer games, and against players of equal skill - giving them a fairly stationary position but one prone to catastrophic failure if they are unlucky on a pub server. I mean, in one fell stroke we manage to turn a system of segregation for enjoyable gameplay into one where the wedge is driven more deeply than ever before. Its just completely counter to its intended purpose!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a hard time to follow you as I don't understand the mechanism of an ELO system.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exploiting the ranking system - picking your games so that the loss is minimal, the gain is maximal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not an exploit. When having such a ranking system, if you manually choose the games you enter into or if you're able to select/kick players which can join your game, you are forced to play with players with roughly the same rank as you in order to have minimal loss and maximal gain. Therefore, you're playing against others who have roughly the same skill as you and get the best gaming experience possible.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Spending the game racking up individual kills rather than supporting your team. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION this is taken into account in "subcategories" and counts for, or against, you when the round is over. I should think the result is pretty clear.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You still got it wrong. Read above.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the restricting effects of rank - the whole principle of a ranking system is to allow balanced and enjoyable matches. Second, this forum is discussing rank restriction on servers, so one must highlight the flaws in THIS system if it were adopted for generating rank.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, point taken.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b> People have leagues to tell them how good their team is compared to others. If ranking is there "just because", then its a wang competition, and NS doesnt need people that think their rank is more important than their team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> Why are you saying the ranking serves no purpose in server balance?
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here is the take home message - NS should allow all players to play against each other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the matchmaking is automatic, it would be extremely improbable that the number one player would ever play a game with a beginner who plays his first game. And I don't see how this could be inconvenient in any way. If this newbie is a friend of yours who you would want to play with, you could simply join an unranked game. If the matchmaking is manual, it's up to the players to choose their opponents and teammates, but normally there shouldn't be humonguous discrepancies between ranks.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Individual ranking is at best an indicator that allows Admins to balance their servers in terms of skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a game balance relies on admins, it's completely useless.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ranking should allow for enjoyable games across a certain range. Adopting an ELO style system effectively DEMANDS that players stick with their own ranks or higher, and play fairly predictable games for fear of losing a GLOBAL rank.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The range can be modified into a desirable proportion by altering the weight that rank plays in the number of points you win or lose. So the "ranking would allow for enjoyable games across a certains range."
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please compare and contrast with other systems that adopt a local, server-based approach and do not globally penalise a player for choosing to play with lower skilled buddies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, you might want to play with your lower skilled buddies (perhaps on unranked games), but the majority of the time players just want their teammates and opponents to have roughly the same skill as themselves. At least, that is my case.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for ranked and unranked...... Last I was aware, players tend to prefer the Ranked servers to Unranked ones. Probably because there is much less mucking about, and certainly because Ranked servers tend to give skill/exp/item perks over time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, generally games which have global ranks have pretty much the same amount of ranked and unranked games.
<!--quoteo(post=1676911:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:34 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 05:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676911"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is escalating into a drawn-out essay writing contest with no clear description of what is being discussed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1676912:date=Apr 27 2008, 06:31 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 27 2008, 06:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676912"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wrong, NS was a smaller game than CS and there were not scrims available 24/7, and even if there were teammates were not always on as well. These competitive players would often pub if they could not get a scrim or match going.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt that the sequel to Natural Selection will be as small a game as it is now.
In addition, you're being a bit contadictory when talking about competitive players. Either they seldom play on public servers (as you first indicated), in which case they would not interfere with public play and leaderboards. Either they play more or less often on public servers (as you now say), in which case they would have a suficient rank to not interfere with public play or leaderboards.
<!--quoteo(post=1676912:date=Apr 27 2008, 06:31 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 27 2008, 06:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676912"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The 5 best players in counter strike would not be on any developer created leaderboard, your point falls apart based on that fact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would it fall apart based on that fact? If Counter-strike would have some kind of effective global ranking system, you could spot the 5 best players on the leaderboard. Aside from the existence of such a ranking system, my point was just to show you that good individual players can match a well prepared teamwork to some extent.
<!--quoteo(post=1676912:date=Apr 27 2008, 06:31 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 27 2008, 06:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676912"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The fact that they don't care about their rank jeopardizes the whole system. Competitive players would be "under-rated" according to this system, but would shake up the system enough to disrupt the balance in the game, thus creating more false statistics. This is part of the reason why a leader-board style of balancing fails. See Sarasiel's post for more reasons why its flawed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've only discussed the reasons why competitive players would only have a minor effect on rankings. And, in any case, they could (and would?) play on unranked public servers, which would have a mixed range of skills, rather than on ranked servers at beginner levels.
<!--quoteo(post=1676658:date=Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Great, now how would we go about defining the rank difference in NS that is "prohibitive"?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the matchmaking is automatic, it's up to the game developers to figure that out. On Supreme Commander, the rank difference is made the smallest possible. But the longer it takes for the system to find gaming partners the less strict it becomes in regard to rank difference.
<!--quoteo(post=1676658:date=Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When players join a server, will they sign a virtual agreement to only play as a commander (or not to play as a commander), only as a fade (or not as a fade), only as a marine (or not as a marine, or only using certain weapons)?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the matchmaking is manual, it's up to the game developers again to make a choice. But, if I were to decide, I'd say players would partner up either as aliens or marines (their overall and category points being visible to everyone). Then, the marine players should have to vote for their commander (which would need to accept the post). If subcategories would exist, those points could also be visible and as such they could be an indication for players of what weapons they're good at as marines or what creatures they're good at as aliens. So, eventually, players could already even decide what specific roles they would play. Also, either the server should allow only a certain range of ranks to enter, either the players should be able to kick other players out.
<!--quoteo(post=1676658:date=Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we are going to split the individual skill into subsections for commander, alien, and marine - then when we combine them back together again (or even if we don't) how do we know who is going to play as what?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keep in mind that in a ranked game all players would need to play from the beginning till the end. So, the game developers could easily design a game lobby in which players could arrange themselves in teams and discuss strategies even before the session would start.
<!--quoteo(post=1676658:date=Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only saving grace I can think of for this is that really skilled players are just better overall at everything - then a value could be assigned.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A truelly skilled player always is an all-around master.
<!--quoteo(post=1676658:date=Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, what level of "better" warrants restriction of entry to servers? I'm not really comfortable with this idea and never have been.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You would always have access to servers, since there would always be open servers to your level (either based on overall rank or category rank).
<!--quoteo(post=1676769:date=Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676769"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're basing this all on wins, that's even worse than what I thought it would be.
Problems that come to mind: 1. For the commander: how do you tell if it is the commander's fault that the team lost or if he just got a bad marine team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't. He's part of the losing team, so he loses (points).
<!--quoteo(post=1676769:date=Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676769"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2. For the aliens: if stats are based on wins, there is nothing that will tell you what role a particular alien player is going to take in any particular game. For example, there are many players who are piss-poor at skulking but can lerk very well or gorge very well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Different alien-species could represent different subcategories. If you have most wins as a skulk, you have most of your alien points in the skulk subcategory.
<!--quoteo(post=1676769:date=Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676769"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3. For the marines: a mirror image of the problem with the commander<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The points you would have in your commander category would be an indication of your skill as a commander since it would direclty refer to your Win:Loss ratio in all games in which you've played as a commander.
<!--quoteo(post=1676769:date=Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676769"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->4. Incentive - not everybody plays to win, nor should they be forced to in order to maintain some kind of rank<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why there could be unranked games as well.
<!--quoteo(post=1676769:date=Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676769"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->5. How to distinguish between the contributions of players in each game? Who actually carries the team versus who gets carried?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't distinguish contributions, otherwise you end up with statwhoring. It's a teamwin or a teamloss. In any case, in the long run, players who contribute the most to wins will have better Win:Loss ratios than other players and have better ranks.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why would it fall apart based on that fact? If Counter-strike would have some kind of effective global ranking system, you could spot the 5 best players on the leaderboard. Aside from the existence of such a ranking system, my point was just to show you that good individual players can match a well prepared teamwork to some extent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because the ability to dominate a ranked pub server differs from the ability to dominate a competitive match.
You are assuming that time spent playing in a pub is equal to time spent playing in a controlled environment. You are assuming your leaderboard all stars would have all the great tactics and strategies that a professional team like 3D or SK would have. You are assuming that they would have developed the mind games and such that the professional teams have. What I am saying to you is that if you take those 5 leaderboard players and put them any professional CS team, they would NOT win. Guarenteed.
Sarisel - I'm sorry for the long post, but I had to excessively clarify each and every point. Hopefully I can be more concise.
On another note, directed to Flatrick - Splitting one reply over TEN POSTS is tantamount to spamming, and your postcount won't gain you any kudos here, my friend.
I'll reply as concisely as possible, for the sake of everyone's sanity and to maintain the coherence of the thread.
Flatrick -
"It'd be nice to have it" is NOT a good reason for a design imperative. If it doesn't work, it doesn't go in, no matter how nice it would be. That's just a fact of the dev process. It is not up to the devs to magically endow players with skill.
Excellent commanders, excellent Marines, and excellent Aliens are all three different categories gaining points in three different ways, and ranking only means that people will choose to pad their rank by picking the role most likely to give points - regardless of how good or bad they are at it. You cannot arbitrarily rank three different roles the same way, and at the same time you cannot selectively weight the three different roles. Players should not be penalised for teamplay, period.
Regarding weighting - you imply that dropping a hive in a high skill game is "worth more" than dropping a hive in a low skill game? Ridiculous.
You say a player only gets points for a team win, but then you say that a player gets points for a loss too. Make your mind up, refine your point system, because at the moment it's less than babble.
A strategically poor move CAN benefit the individual. SC first followed by Walls of Lame. Or your favourite chamber followed by early Fade. Since you get points for losing (made your mind up on that yet?) then even if I lose I'll have a stack of points because I got a lot of assists and damage points.
If points are weighted by "average skill" then by extension you MUST get a giant killer bonus. You agree, and then you disagree. Have you made your mind up yet?
For your clarification, in simple terms, SupCom is not a team based game where offensively weak players can play a phenomenal support role. It allows people to play cooperatively, not supportively. Two cooperative players will thrash one player and his support buddy. Simple numbers plus the micro advantage of being able to coordinate two attacks. In NS, Marines DEMAND a pure support player (the Comm), and Aliens can be very successful with a dedicated support gorge. It is unfortunate that you cannot see the difference. You claim I have no knowledge of Halo or SupCom - I find this interesting considering you have never played Halo. So how does this put you into a position to judge, mm? You have spectacularly missed the point, despite referencing it - SupCom rewards COOPERATIVE play, it does not reward a PURE SUPPORT PLAYER. If you disagree, hop into 2v2 and build no offensive units. Good luck.
If you don't understand how ELO rating works, you shouldn't be shooting your mouth off about SupCom's system. More importantly, perhaps you should make it your business to know how it works, so that when you do write a cheque with your mouth, you're able to cash it. You can't just say "Oh look how X system works, its great" and then say "Actually I don't know how X system works, nor do I care to learn how it does". Its sheer ignorance and serves no part in constructive debate.
You say that I finally "get it" when I say that you cannot rank NS on W:L - yet you suggest that NS *should* be ranked purely on W:L. Have you made your mind up yet?
Penalising a team for their Comm only leads back to the dark days of NS when any mistake by a Comm led to cries of "NOOB COMM" and a chair kick. By encouraging that situation, you effectively lose any and all credibility you may have had. You cannot penalise one side explicitly because of their unique playstyle. It only leads to players stacking the other side, and that kills NS.
You cannot generate a system for NS that REQUIRES 12+ players of uniform skill levels. I personally have not heard of anyone even attempting such a system, let alone succeeding. As has been stated to you, the only section of the community that could possibly achieve this task would be those competing in a League, in which case they have their own ways of allocating rank - useless to the global community.
I don't know why you haven't figured this out, but the average NS player wants to play with his friends. He wants an enjoyable game with people he knows. He does NOT want to be FORCED into a situation where EVERY game he plays MUST be at the best of his ability, or face ostracism. Even League players enjoy "off time". No, its not a case of "then play on unranked servers", because NS is more than a two tier system of "competing" or "casual". You simply cannot propose a system that boils down to "Play like a robot or play like a child", because it ruins the fun and enjoyment of playing the game. Its just not sinking in, is it?
What you have failed to grasp, grasshopper, is that playing as Marines under your system involves more risk than gain. You have stated a good team crippled by their Comm should be punished. Considering that there are more green Comms than great Comms, it makes more sense to be on an Alien team that will allow you to win despite the presence of a single bad player.
You claim not to have stated that points are gained or lost on performance, which is a lie, as not only have you said that only wins count for points, you have also said that wins AND losses count for points. <b>Have you made your mind up yet?</b>
Picking your games for "maximum rank gain" IS an exploit. People will want a high rank, and all the kudos it would imply. Like in Chess and SupCom, people will be very choosy in their matches, so that its all about big gain and little loss. Which, unfortunately, makes for pretty poor global gameplay.
You missed the bold text, so I'll put it here again - <b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b> I did not say it serves no purpose, I said <b>if</b> it serves no purpose. I trust you have the cognitive ability to understand the difference.
Implementing a ranking system because "it would be nice", with it having no other effect than being an eWang system, is a waste of developer time and effort. If it goes in, it goes in for a purpose. Since you haven't decided how your ranking system "works", it really shouldn't be going in. Or have you made your mind up yet?
Here's a headline for you - the top ranked players will still want to play relaxing, fun games. Firewater can explain this better to you than I ever could. Furthermore, as pointed out above, you don't just say "oh, play unranked", because such two tier systems don't work. One needs only look at any Battlefield game, where Ranked is dominant. Indeed, why waste your time playing Unranked with people who just want to drag out the game for "fun" or go mass Onos and sit on an IP lunch munching every spawner? People flock to Ranked servers, so Ranked servers have to be made enjoyable to play. Enforced 6v6 uniform player with Rank penalties is a killer of the global community. I don't know how little Battlefield you've played, but people want those unlocks, and that means Ranked play. You should take a look at the BF website, because it even explains that on Unranked servers it is NOT a necessity to play cooperatively.
I should think the logical inference is obvious, but just to make it easy, the point is that NS demands cooperative play, at all times. There are many levels of cooperative play, but it is a necessity, not an option. A Marine relies on his Comm and vv, a Fade relies on those Gorges dropping chambers and hives.
The five best CS players are not going to be the top five overall best NS players, and vv. NS skills do not directly translate to CS skills. CS players might make stellar marines, but crappy Comms. This doesn't mean either game is "best", it just means that they're different. This much alone should be blatantly obvious. Further, competitive players should NOT be particularly advantaged or disadvantaged when it comes to a GLOBAL ranking system. Your system fails in this regard, which makes it useless.
As to your replies to the other posters, you continue with contradictory "points-don't-count-but-do" and further refer to "subcategories-which-can-be-dropped-but-no-actually-we-do-need-them". <b>Have you made your mind up yet?</b>
Why don't you take a weekend, sit down, write out a cogent idea, and then come back with it. That would help a lot.
Finally, you're wasting a lot of time in your posts taking pot shots than actually making your mind up as to how your alleged point system works. That's probably not a wise move if you want to keep posting in the forum. It definitely isn't a wise move when you don't even have a coherent argument to begin with...
<!--quoteo(post=1676932:date=Apr 27 2008, 03:01 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 27 2008, 03:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676932"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because the ability to dominate a ranked pub server differs from the ability to dominate a competitive match.
You are assuming that time spent playing in a pub is equal to time spent playing in a controlled environment. You are assuming your leaderboard all stars would have all the great tactics and strategies that a professional team like 3D or SK would have. You are assuming that they would have developed the mind games and such that the professional teams have. What I am saying to you is that if you take those 5 leaderboard players and put them any professional CS team, they would NOT win. Guarenteed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This discussion cannot go anywhere since both of us are only speculating.
However, in my opinion, and having played a lot of counter-strike in a controlled environment as well as public servers, I know for a fact (and ain't just assuming) that there are excellent individual players both on public servers and clans. I have seen some extraordinary players take out entire professionnal teams by themselves. The tactics involved in teamplay in Counter-strike are relatively limited (compared at least to some other FPS's) and the maps are small enough for improvised strategies. In some public servers, with regular players, you can even reach a somewhat cohesive teamwork. So, again, if you take the 5 best individual players out there, I'm pretty sure their fragging talents are enough to take out the opposing team. And you have to take into account that they're not completely unaware of teamplay elements, especially if they already play or have played in a clan.
<!--quoteo(post=1676944:date=Apr 27 2008, 11:19 AM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 27 2008, 11:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676944"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This discussion cannot go anywhere since both of us are only speculating.
However, in my opinion, and having played a lot of counter-strike in a controlled environment as well as public servers, I know for a fact (and ain't just assuming) that there are excellent individual players both on public servers and clans. I have seen some extraordinary players take out entire professionnal teams by themselves. The tactics involved in teamplay in Counter-strike are relatively limited (compared at least to some other FPS's) and the maps are small enough for improvised strategies. In some public servers, with regular players, you can even reach a somewhat cohesive teamwork. So, again, if you take the 5 best individual players out there, I'm pretty sure their fragging talents are enough to take out the opposing team. And you have to take into account that they're not completely unaware of teamplay elements, especially if they already play or have played in a clan.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you take the top 5 leaderboard players and put them against team 3D or any other professional team. They will LOSE. Not only do these teams put in a good amount of time, their ability for teamwork will be much greater than those from people who just have leaderboard statistics.
Did those same extraordinary players take out those professional players in a controlled enviornment? Or a public server game which means nothing.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
It's not that the posts are long and not concise - it's more of the fact that there are so many points being presented and countered (whether successfully or not) that this topic is no longer productive.
Wins:losses doesn't work for several reasons. Winning doesn't tell you very much about what happened during the game, what caused the win/loss, and how close the game was. It doesn't tell you how well you played in a particular role - only that you played those roles and won/lost. Just because one person is ranked higher, there is no indication of how well that person actually plays - the only information is that this player has been on winning teams more often than a lower ranked player. I am very doubtful that this kind of system would help balance skill.
Limiting access to servers based on rank doesn't work for <a href="http://unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=104102" target="_blank">several reasons</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sarisel - I'm sorry for the long post, but I had to excessively clarify each and every point. Hopefully I can be more concise.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is ridiculous. You're not clarifying anything...you're confused and just making everything seem even more complicated. In addition, you constantly digress.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On another note, directed to Flatrick - Splitting one reply over TEN POSTS is tantamount to spamming, and your postcount won't gain you any kudos here, my friend.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could bearly keep myself from laughing out loud when I read that. Are you being serious? No, I mean like serious serious? I'm so far from searching any kind of kudos on this forum as you possibly could imagine. My time is precious (everyone's is, I gather that, but I'm on a particularly busy schedule) and it took me some time to even consider posting my suggestion (which is the only thing I wanted to add to any discussions that take place) here. I get plenty of kudos elsewhere, so believe me when I say that I'm not in any kind of quest for recognition. As usual, you get off topic and even personal. Like I said at the very beginning of my initial post "If I'm making this effort to share my opinion, it is solely because I like Natural selection (a lot) and would like its sequel to be as perfect as possible."
As for me splitting my reply, it's due to this forum's restriction for the number of quotes within a reply and its overall length. Not much I can do about that, besides I don't see what drastic difference it would make to have my whole response within one thread since it's divided in chronological order.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'll reply as concisely as possible, for the sake of everyone's sanity and to maintain the coherence of the thread.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your unnecessarily lengthy comments are actually the reason why my own replies become so cumbersome...
"It'd be nice to have it" is NOT a good reason for a design imperative. If it doesn't work, it doesn't go in, no matter how nice it would be. That's just a fact of the dev process. It is not up to the devs to magically endow players with skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you aren't quoting any specific passage, I can just assume that you are talking about the ranking system. There's plenty of reasons (given in this and other posts) which justify such a system and it has nothing to do with endowing players with skill.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Excellent commanders, excellent Marines, and excellent Aliens are all three different categories gaining points in three different ways, and ranking only means that people will choose to pad their rank by picking the role most likely to give points - regardless of how good or bad they are at it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a sense, yes, but not in the sens you meant I fear. People will have to play all three categories for them to hope to get the best rank. That means that they will sometimes pick a category instead of another, because they have less points in the former.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You cannot arbitrarily rank three different roles the same way, and at the same time you cannot selectively weight the three different roles.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? Besides, I already said that the weight of the rank in match-making (be it automatic or manual) could entirely or partially be attributed to a specific category (such as commander, marines or aliens).
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Players should not be penalised for teamplay, period.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come again? How are they penalised for teamplay in this ranking system which is supposed to promote teamplay?
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Regarding weighting - you imply that dropping a hive in a high skill game is "worth more" than dropping a hive in a low skill game? Ridiculous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a sense, yes. If you win the match in a higher-ranked game and you were dropping hives during that match, you would be getting more points (for the win though, not specifically for dropping hives).
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You say a player only gets points for a team win, but then you say that a player gets points for a loss too. Make your mind up, refine your point system, because at the moment it's less than babble.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? Where? When? When did I say that a player gets points for a loss too? If I did, that is a typo, because a player that loses a game loses points (which represent the same amount of points which are gained by the winner).
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A strategically poor move CAN benefit the individual. SC first followed by Walls of Lame. Or your favourite chamber followed by early Fade. Since you get points for losing (made your mind up on that yet?) then even if I lose I'll have a stack of points because I got a lot of assists and damage points.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, I hope someone else would please comment on your observations in order for me to see whether I'm really that bad of an explainer or if you're just slow at comprehending things.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If points are weighted by "average skill" then by extension you MUST get a giant killer bonus. You agree, and then you disagree. Have you made your mind up yet?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't follow you? What are you getting a giant killer bonus for?
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For your clarification, in simple terms, SupCom is not a team based game where offensively weak players can play a phenomenal support role. It allows people to play cooperatively, not supportively. Two cooperative players will thrash one player and his support buddy. Simple numbers plus the micro advantage of being able to coordinate two attacks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just by curiosity, have you even played the Supreme Commander add-on, Forged Alliance?
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In NS, Marines DEMAND a pure support player (the Comm), and Aliens can be very successful with a dedicated support gorge. It is unfortunate that you cannot see the difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see the slight nuance perhaps, but not the difference.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You claim I have no knowledge of Halo or SupCom<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. First of all, I didn't say anything about your knowledge regarding Halo. Second of all, I didn't claim anything either, I suggested that it was probable that you were unaware of how Supreme Commander operates. You seriously need to pay a lot more of attention to what is said before claiming this and that.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- I find this interesting considering you have never played Halo. So how does this put you into a position to judge, mm? You have spectacularly missed the point, despite referencing it - SupCom rewards COOPERATIVE play, it does not reward a PURE SUPPORT PLAYER. If you disagree, hop into 2v2 and build no offensive units. Good luck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, "missed the point"? Are you still aware of what this topic is about?
As for Supreme Commander, you should watch some replays of top players who play supportive (and not cooperative) roles. Have YOU ever played a 2v2 and built no offensive units? Try it and you might learn something.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you don't understand how ELO rating works, you shouldn't be shooting your mouth off about SupCom's system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was primarily presenting how the Myth's system works and just praising the automatic match-making of Supreme Commander (much less its scoring system). Anyway, you're merely trying to be offensive. Do I need to know how a Ferrari works in order to say that it runs smoothly and better than most cars?
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->More importantly, perhaps you should make it your business to know how it works, so that when you do write a cheque with your mouth, you're able to cash it. You can't just say "Oh look how X system works, its great" and then say "Actually I don't know how X system works, nor do I care to learn how it does". Its sheer ignorance and serves no part in constructive debate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting choice of words: "constructive debate" Yes, I can and yes I did do just that. I'll let others with more knowledge about that system take the relay and discuss it with you. I wish them good luck!
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You say that I finally "get it" when I say that you cannot rank NS on W:L - yet you suggest that NS *should* be ranked purely on W:L. Have you made your mind up yet?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I've made up my mind: we have communication issues. When I said "you get it", I meant that you finally understood what I initially had explained: this ranking system is based on W:L. I wasn't referring to your remarks about this ranking system.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Penalising a team for their Comm only leads back to the dark days of NS when any mistake by a Comm led to cries of "NOOB COMM" and a chair kick.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes and no. If you got 0 points in the commander category, you are indeed a noob and are going to play at noob levels. If someone shouts at you "NOOB COMM", they're not that far from the truth, are they? Of course, players could have some sense of politness, especially at beginner levels and realize that everyone has to learn by trial and mistake. If a comm makes mistakes at higher levels which he shouldn't have done based on his experience (aka points), players would again have the right to be frustrated at their comm.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By encouraging that situation, you effectively lose any and all credibility you may have had. You cannot penalise one side explicitly because of their unique playstyle. It only leads to players stacking the other side, and that kills NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you mean by penalising "one side explicitly because of their unique playstyle" and "It only leads to players stacking the other side"? If you're suggesting players will change their side when a Comm sucks, that is of course not possible in a ranked game. They can't switch teams in the middle of a session.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You cannot generate a system for NS that REQUIRES 12+ players of uniform skill levels. I personally have not heard of anyone even attempting such a system, let alone succeeding. As has been stated to you, the only section of the community that could possibly achieve this task would be those competing in a League, in which case they have their own ways of allocating rank - useless to the global community.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Myth 1, Myth 2, Myth 3...but I agree with you on one point. There are few games with in-game global rankings with some sort of match-making and few games which allow 12+ gamers to play simultaneously. The combined effect of these two facts is that there are very few games that both allow 12+ gamers to play simultaneously and have an in-game global ranking system with some sort of match-making. However, that only means that such systems are rare, not impossible to generate. And I don't see why that should be a difficult task, especially if you bear in mind that Natural Selection 2 (commercialized) should have a much larger gamer community than its predecessor (simple mod).
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know why you haven't figured this out, but the average NS player wants to play with his friends.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had a lot of friends on Myth whom I played with both on ranked and unranked games. If you're friends play roughly as much as you (which is often the case), they will be able to play the same ranked games as you. If you're friends play more or less than you, you can still play together on unranked games.
In any case, neither you or I can say what the average NS player wants, let alone what the average NS2 player will want. Personally, I just want to play with roughly the same level as me, with roughly even teams, in order to have the most challenging and enjoyable game possible. If friends are included, that's even better.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He wants an enjoyable game with people he knows. He does NOT want to be FORCED into a situation where EVERY game he plays MUST be at the best of his ability, or face ostracism.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's not forced to play ranked games, he can play unranked games much in the same fashion as he would now with the current Natural Selection.
Unranked games would be perfect for "off time" for any player.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, its not a case of "then play on unranked servers", because NS is more than a two tier system of "competing" or "casual". You simply cannot propose a system that boils down to "Play like a robot or play like a child", because it ruins the fun and enjoyment of playing the game. Its just not sinking in, is it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unranked doesn't mean you have to play like a child and ranked doesn't mean you have to play like a robot. I don't understand where you got such a misconcieved conception of this kind of division. All games which propose a leaderboard also have an unranked section and it never has ruined the fun nor enjoyment of playing the game, be it in ranked or unranked.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What you have failed to grasp, grasshopper, is that playing as Marines under your system involves more risk than gain. You have stated a good team crippled by their Comm should be punished. Considering that there are more green Comms than great Comms, it makes more sense to be on an Alien team that will allow you to win despite the presence of a single bad player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, I must have explained this part about 5 times already. I'll try to take you through it step by step: 1. You have 210 points in your overall ranking. You have 100 points in Comm category and 100 points in Alien category, but only 10 points in your Marine category. 2. You play with players having an average rank of 210 points. The average number of points they have in the specific categories they play is 100. 3. The scoring weight can either be based entirely or partially on players' overall ranking (210 points) or on the category players are playing (100 points). This should be decided by the developers (possibly after a beta-testing?). 4. The scoring is based entirely on the overall ranking (210 points). 4.a. You play the commander. 4.a.i. You win the game. You get 15 points, which are added to your commander category (making it 115 points) and your overall score (making it 225 points). 4.a.ii. You lose the game. You lose 15 points, which are substracted from your commander category (making it 85 points) and your overall score (making it 195 points). 4.b. You play a marine. 4.b.i. You win the game. You get You get 15 points, which are added to your marine category (making it 25 points) and your overall score (making it 225 points). 4.b.ii. You lose the game. You lose 10 points (and not 15 points since you only have 10 points in your marine category), which are substracted from your marine category (making it 0 points) and your overall score (making it 200 points). 5. The scoring is based entirely on the category each player is playing (100 points). 5.a. You play the commander. <b>Note that the weight of your rank in this specific category remains the same as in the overall rank.</b> 5.a.i. You win the game. You get 15 points, which are added to your commander category (making it 115 points) and your overall score (making it 225 points). 5.a.ii. You lose the game. You lose 15 points, which are substracted from your commander category (making it 85 points) and your overall score (making it 195 points). 5.b. You play a marine. <b>Note that the weight of your rank in this specific category is no the same as in the overall rank. Hence, your team's average rank will be slightly lower than the one of the other team. This basically means you will win more points in case of a win and lose less points in case of a loss.</b> 5.b.i. You win the game. You get You get 21 points (like all your teammates), which are added to your marine category (making it 31 points) and your overall score (making it 231 points). 5.b.ii. You lose the game. You lose 9 points, which are substracted from your marine category (making it 1 point) and your overall score (making it 201 points).
I hope you get it this time. You need to play all categories for 3 reasons: - You win more points in case of a win - You lose less points in case of a loss - You can never go below 0 points in one particular category
The algorithms involved might be a little bit more complex than what I've portrayed here, but I guess the developers could simply contact Bungie in order to get a closer look at their scoring system.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You claim not to have stated that points are gained or lost on performance, which is a lie, as not only have you said that only wins count for points, you have also said that wins AND losses count for points. <b>Have you made your mind up yet?</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you quote me please? And even if you're right, it's an unfortunate mistake by my part, not a lie. And even that is besides the point, since now you finally understand where I was initially heading at.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Picking your games for "maximum rank gain" IS an exploit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it's not, but I guess that that would be subjective.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People will want a high rank, and all the kudos it would imply. Like in Chess and SupCom, people will be very choosy in their matches, so that its all about big gain and little loss. Which, unfortunately, makes for pretty poor global gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LoL, and you're telling me that you know SupCom? How can you be choosy in SupCom when it has an automatic match-making system?
A part from that, why does that make a "pretty poor global gameplay"? It just encourages people of roughly the same skill-level to play together. And, as I've repeatedly told you before, an automatic match-making system wouldn't allow players to pick anything.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You missed the bold text, so I'll put it here again - <b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b> I did not say it serves no purpose, I said <b>if</b> it serves no purpose. I trust you have the cognitive ability to understand the difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh my goodness, you're being quite the pain in the...ok, let me rephrase that then: <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> Why are you <strike>saying</strike> implying the ranking serves no purpose in server balance?
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Implementing a ranking system because "it would be nice", with it having no other effect than being an eWang system, is a waste of developer time and effort. If it goes in, it goes in for a purpose. Since you haven't decided how your ranking system "works", it really shouldn't be going in. Or have you made your mind up yet?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have, but have you understood how it works yet?
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here's a headline for you - the top ranked players will still want to play relaxing, fun games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The games would still be relaxing, but just in case there is still unranked games.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Firewater can explain this better to you than I ever could.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't doubt anyone could be more intelligible than you are.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Furthermore, as pointed out above, you don't just say "oh, play unranked", because such two tier systems don't work. One needs only look at any Battlefield game, where Ranked is dominant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look at other games then.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Indeed, why waste your time playing Unranked with people who just want to drag out the game for "fun" or go mass Onos and sit on an IP lunch munching every spawner?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that is your conception of unranked games, I hope I'll never encounter you on such terrain.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People flock to Ranked servers, so Ranked servers have to be made enjoyable to play. Enforced 6v6 uniform player with Rank penalties is a killer of the global community. I don't know how little Battlefield you've played, but people want those unlocks, and that means Ranked play. You should take a look at the BF website, because it even explains that on Unranked servers it is NOT a necessity to play cooperatively.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I've already said, I've never played battlefield.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I should think the logical inference is obvious, but just to make it easy, the point is that NS demands cooperative play, at all times. There are many levels of cooperative play, but it is a necessity, not an option. A Marine relies on his Comm and vv, a Fade relies on those Gorges dropping chambers and hives.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other words, players would have to play cooperatively even on unranked games. Which I guess they would, if it's "not an option".
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The five best CS players are not going to be the top five overall best NS players, and vv. NS skills do not directly translate to CS skills.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hell are you talking about? Did I ever say anything of that sort? Geez, you really like to ramble.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CS players might make stellar marines, but crappy Comms. This doesn't mean either game is "best", it just means that they're different. This much alone should be blatantly obvious. Further, competitive players should NOT be particularly advantaged or disadvantaged when it comes to a GLOBAL ranking system. Your system fails in this regard, which makes it useless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes they should, if they fail to play on public servers.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As to your replies to the other posters, you continue with contradictory "points-don't-count-but-do" and further refer to "subcategories-which-can-be-dropped-but-no-actually-we-do-need-them". <b>Have you made your mind up yet?</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same as above.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why don't you take a weekend, sit down, write out a cogent idea, and then come back with it. That would help a lot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, why don't you take a weekend, buy Myth II, test the game online, and then come back after you've understood what the scoring system is all about. THAT would help a lot. My idea was crystal clear and concise in the first place, but it might seem incoherent to you, especially now that I've had to repeat and detail every aspect of it.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Finally, you're wasting a lot of time in your posts taking pot shots than actually making your mind up as to how your alleged point system works. That's probably not a wise move if you want to keep posting in the forum. It definitely isn't a wise move when you don't even have a coherent argument to begin with...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't plan to post in the forum in the future, since this was the only major flaw I could see with the sequel that hadn't been resolved on this forum.
<!--quoteo(post=1676956:date=Apr 27 2008, 07:18 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 27 2008, 07:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676956"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you take the top 5 leaderboard players and put them against team 3D or any other professional team. They will LOSE. Not only do these teams put in a good amount of time, their ability for teamwork will be much greater than those from people who just have leaderboard statistics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's say one of the players from team 3D qualifies as one of the top 5 players in the world. He would then excel as an individual player and would have excellent knowledge on teamwork play. A mix of such players could come up with good tactics in no time.
<!--quoteo(post=1676956:date=Apr 27 2008, 07:18 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 27 2008, 07:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676956"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Did those same extraordinary players take out those professional players in a controlled enviornment? Or a public server game which means nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a controlled environment. I've seen some pretty amazing things on the <a href="http://www.xfire.com/cms/xf_trophy/" target="_blank">X-Fire Trophy</a> which gets aired on French TV.
<!--quoteo(post=1676956:date=Apr 27 2008, 07:18 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 27 2008, 07:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676956"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So AGAIN, your argument is pretty much epic fail.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty lame to come to such conclusions even before I've been able to answer you.
<!--quoteo(post=1676958:date=Apr 27 2008, 07:23 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 07:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676958"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wins:losses doesn't work for several reasons. Winning doesn't tell you very much about what happened during the game, what caused the win/loss, and how close the game was. It doesn't tell you how well you played in a particular role - only that you played those roles and won/lost. Just because one person is ranked higher, there is no indication of how well that person actually plays - the only information is that this player has been on winning teams more often than a lower ranked player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On winning teams that he has helped to win...
<!--quoteo(post=1676958:date=Apr 27 2008, 07:23 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 07:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676958"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am very doubtful that this kind of system would help balance skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This system worked on the Myth series which has some very similar elements to Natural selection: - It's team-based - It's got a multiplayer support for over 12 players - It's an RTS, but heavily oriented on fast-paced action - The sessions are relatively long
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1676979:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:32 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 27 2008, 04:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676979"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On winning teams that he has helped to win...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow - you just rebuked my argument in 9 words! Come on... don't you see that you're <b>ASSUMING</b> that every player helps to win? With this system, cannon fodder is just as good as the cavalry.
<!--quoteo(post=1676979:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:32 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 27 2008, 04:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676979"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This system worked on the Myth series which has some very similar elements to Natural selection: - It's team-based - It's got a multiplayer support for over 12 players - It's an RTS, but heavily oriented on fast-paced action - The sessions are relatively long
So there is an element of comparison.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, but we're specifically talking about NS here. So what about the entire FPS element of it? Or does that not strike you as being important? It does, after all, introduce all kinds of complications in the sense of player interactions, contributions, and teamwork that make win-based ranking inappropriate, as I have been trying to show by mentioning individual contributions. Not everybody contributes the same to get a win or loss.
I'm also really tempted to jump into the two parallel conversations with Necrosis and Firewater, although they're both capable of defending their ideas... but you're not addressing the core of their points in your rebuttals. A superficial response does not really deflect the weight of the arguments. For example:
- FW states that professional teams that have played together for a long time will beat a team made of a handful of the top pub players. You state that they could. However, in all likelihood they would need time to get used to one another before they could be a functional team. You say that they could do this in no time. What is this statement based on? What the hell does this even have to do with supporting this ranking system that you're suggesting? It just seems like this is degenerating into a "I'm right you're wrong" kind of argument for ANY point (or segment of a post) presented, rather than tying it back to the main topic at hand. This is what causes topics to become useless.
<!--quoteo(post=1676980:date=Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wow - you just rebuked my argument in 9 words! Come on... don't you see that you're <b>ASSUMING</b> that every player helps to win? With this system, cannon fodder is just as good as the cavalry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't rebuke you, but I guess I'm just getting annoyed at repeating myself...oh well, here it goes: you're not completely wrong, some players will contibute more than others in a teamwin. However, on the long run, the players contributing will have more wins than the ones that aren't. It doesn't take too many sessions for the statistics to even out. This might be a bit troublesome at beginner levels, but a noob will never get miraculous wins one after the other and just ride the ranks by winging winning teams. To make it even more clear, in Myth II, I could have probably won 95% of my games if I played solo. The problem was that I couldn't because my rank weighed to much on the scoring and I could only hope to win 1 point per game, while losing (the maximum amount of) 32 points for a loss. When I played in a team, the weight of my rank was diluted in the teams average rank, but consequently I only won about 60% of my games. I knew I contributed the most for the wins, but that didn't bother me as I would accumulate more wins/points than others on the long run.
<!--quoteo(post=1676980:date=Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok, but we're specifically talking about NS here. So what about the entire FPS element of it? Or does that not strike you as being important?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It does, but as I've said before, all the scoring systems on FPS's seem very uneffective in my opinion, especially on team-based games. None of the statistics encourage teamplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1676980:date=Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It does, after all, introduce all kinds of complications in the sense of player interactions, contributions, and teamwork that make win-based ranking inappropriate, as I have been trying to show by mentioning individual contributions. Not everybody contributes the same to get a win or loss.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This doesn't vary because of the type of game...players in an RTS can contribute just as much to a win as FPS players. For example, in the Myth series, players could be in charge of just a few or even one single unit (with multiple actions such as in an FPS game).
<!--quoteo(post=1676980:date=Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm also really tempted to jump into the two parallel conversations with Necrosis and Firewater, although they're both capable of defending their ideas... but you're not addressing the core of their points in your rebuttals. A superficial response does not really deflect the weight of the arguments. For example:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a pretty strong statement taking into consideration that I've responded to every single statement they've made, while they just arbitrarily pick out the passages they wish to criticize.
<!--quoteo(post=1676980:date=Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- FW states that professional teams that have played together for a long time will beat a team made of a handful of the top pub players. You state that they could. However, in all likelihood they would need time to get used to one another before they could be a functional team. You say that they could do this in no time. What is this statement based on?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's based on what I know about individual and teamplay skills and their respective weight in teamgames. But as I've already mentioned, this can only be based on speculations on my or Firewater's behalf.
<!--quoteo(post=1676980:date=Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What the hell does this even have to do with supporting this ranking system that you're suggesting?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing.
<!--quoteo(post=1676980:date=Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It just seems like this is degenerating into a "I'm right you're wrong" kind of argument for ANY point (or segment of a post) presented, rather than tying it back to the main topic at hand. This is what causes topics to become useless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, but as you may have noticed (or not), I have constantly tried to tell everyone to get back on topic. I know I may sound immature in saying "I didn't start this debacle, so I'm not responsible for it", but that's how I feel; I just answer to any comments made to me.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1676989:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:40 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 27 2008, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676989"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... you're not completely wrong, some players will contibute more than others in a teamwin. However, on the long run, the players contributing will have more wins than the ones that aren't. It doesn't take too many sessions for the statistics to even out. This might be a bit troublesome at beginner levels, but a noob will never get miraculous wins one after the other and just ride the ranks by winging winning teams. To make it even more clear, in Myth II, I could have probably won 95% of my games if I played solo. The problem was that I couldn't because my rank weighed to much on the scoring and I could only hope to win 1 point per game, while losing (the maximum amount of) 32 points for a loss. When I played in a team, the weight of my rank was diluted in the teams average rank, but consequently I only won about 60% of my games. I knew I contributed the most for the wins, but that didn't bother me as I would accumulate more wins/points than others on the long run.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay. That might be valid in a 2v2 or 4v4 or maybe even 6v6. In public NS2, we're talking about 15v15 and possibly up to 30v30. With each person in such large teams getting an equal number of points for winning or losing, I am hesitant to put my trust in statistics.
<!--quoteo(post=1676989:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:40 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 27 2008, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676989"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It does, but as I've said before, all the scoring systems on FPS's seem very uneffective in my opinion, especially on team-based games. None of the statistics encourage teamplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can see how a win-based ranking system may be intended to promote teamwork - so as to win. However, I see no incentive for players to want to win in NS2. What will they get out of it? A higher rank? Why would players want/care about a higher rank?
Maybe I'm missing the point here - we are trying to balance skill, right? So what stops a bunch of high ranked players from stacking against much lower ranked players? They have much more to lose (point-wise) IF they lose but: 1. why should they care? 2. what's the chances of them losing? Not very high.
<!--quoteo(post=1676989:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:40 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 27 2008, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676989"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This doesn't vary because of the type of game...players in an RTS can contribute just as much to a win as FPS players. For example, in the Myth series, players could be in charge of just a few or even one single unit (with multiple actions such as in an FPS game).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In NS1, it was common for 2-3 good players to carry 14 mediocre players. And it wasn't even so much about teamwork, but rather raw skill. A single marine could hold a hive against 8 skulks with minimal support from a commander. I'm not sure how this will be in NS2. However, in contrast, it was also common to have 2-3 good players on aliens fail miserably when a single gorge dropped the wrong chamber and screwed the entire team out of a win in the first 2 minutes of the game. Likewise, an entire marine team's FPS contributions can get crippled by a single bad commander. Did something like this ever happen in Myth 2? Just how variable were the levels of contributions and how pivotal were players' roles in winning/losing?
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Okay. That might be valid in a 2v2 or 4v4 or maybe even 6v6. In public NS2, we're talking about 15v15 and possibly up to 30v30.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Myth series supported up to 16 players and most games consisted of full servers with 8v8. The gameplay could have easily supported twice as many players, but multiplayer was limited to 16 players simply because at the time bandwidth connections and computer power would not allow larger activities.
By the way, there's one thing that I've completely forgot to mention. The ranking system combined with a fixed starting and ending point for a session made the myth series feel very clean and organized, even with 16 players around. This is absolutely not the feeling I get in FPS's in which there are extremely many players (like 60), especially when players just can go in and out of the server as pleases them. Often I get a pretty chaotic impression of any kind of active teamwork when new players arrive in middle of a battle and others quit or simply stay afk. I'd be overjoyful if I'd see a proper 60-player game in which each participant would play his part from the beginning till the end and would stick to the tactics laid out at the start. Your doubts and observations regarding the ranking set aside, don't you think that would be a pleasant gaming environment?
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With each person in such large teams getting an equal number of points for winning or losing, I am hesitant to put my trust in statistics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand how that could make one feel uneasy, but I'm so enthusiast about this system simply because I've already seen it work. Although I have to agree on one thing: if the number of players is excessively large (like over 32 players), I'm not 100% sure that the ranking would work as well as I've been used to.
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can see how a win-based ranking system may be intended to promote teamwork - so as to win. However, I see no incentive for players to want to win in NS2. What will they get out of it? A higher rank? Why would players want/care about a higher rank?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well take a look at that quote and ask yourself the same question about NS1: why do people bother with any effort to win? The ranking has the exact same purpose as the main objective of the game: bring a win to your team. Any kind of other statistic or leaderboard diverts player from this goal.
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe I'm missing the point here - we are trying to balance skill, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amongst other things, yes.
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what stops a bunch of high ranked players from stacking against much lower ranked players?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In theory, nothing if the match-making is not automatic...this being true though independently of the existence of any ranking system. In practice, I guess a bunch of skilled player would simply not find it fun to stack against unskilled players and would not even consider it. The whole point of the balancing aspect of the ranking system is to allow players to find challenging experiences.
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They have much more to lose (point-wise) IF they lose but: 1. why should they care?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, as I said above, depends if they want to have fun playing the game or not. And still, it has nothing to do with the ranking system. A bunch of skilled players can already mass on a NS1-server to beat the crap out of other players.
So basically they should care about winning and keeping a rank that corresponds to their skill in order to be able to compete against other players with the same level.
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2. what's the chances of them losing? Not very high.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep.
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In NS1, it was common for 2-3 good players to carry 14 mediocre players. And it wasn't even so much about teamwork, but rather raw skill. A single marine could hold a hive against 8 skulks with minimal support from a commander. I'm not sure how this will be in NS2. However, in contrast, it was also common to have 2-3 good players on aliens fail miserably when a single gorge dropped the wrong chamber and screwed the entire team out of a win in the first 2 minutes of the game. Likewise, an entire marine team's FPS contributions can get crippled by a single bad commander. Did something like this ever happen in Myth 2?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, very similar scenarios occurred in Myth 2. A set of examples: - The game had tons of different types of units, each with a set of characteristics and possible actions. Some units were obviously more valuable than others, but almost all units had their proper role, each being crucial for the victory. If a player sucked at using some type of unit, it could ruin any effort made by his teammates. Vice versa, if a player was extremely good at using some type of unit, he could wipe out large portions of the enemy army. Units such as this were for example the wizard or the troll, or even the cannon in the WWII mod. - Each team had a leader who could control all the units and choose the units "to buy" at the beginning of the game. He could completely screw up the game by buying an unbalanced set of units or by simply not buying certain vital units. As he has to hand over the units to other players, some leaders would take too much time doing so and end up spending very valuable time needed to obtain keypoints in the map. Obviously, he could also give too many units to one player in regard to another or not give the specific units one player was good at (much like the commander should give the weapons at which each player is good at in NS). Fortunately, players could, once their units were handed to them, switch those units between themselves. - Generally the highest ranked players laid out tactics that were followed by all players. If those orders were not followed by everyone, it could jeopardize the entire teamwin (especially on capture the flag or defend base-type games).
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just how variable were the levels of contributions and how pivotal were players' roles in winning/losing?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The levels of contributions could be very variable and as I explained above all players had pivotal roles. In most maps, a team could only afford 1 wizard, 1 dwarf, 1 bomber, 1 barbarian, a few archers, etc. Players would therefore often get only 1 unit to take extra care of, because it would be so important for the team. While an unit could be strong against a certain type of unit, it could be extremely vulnerable to another type of unit. And players could become very specialized at some types of units...because although it is an RTS-type of game, it allows very minutuous gameplay with fine-tuning the timing of attacks and other special quirks for different type of actions.
Flatrick, the take home message is that your post count doesn't confer wisdom, and it is not an indicator of your IQ. Your "suggestions" are contradictory, and patently ridiculous. If you cannot cope with the quote restriction, may I suggest you don't waste quotes on pithy replies.
With regards to the subject body, one can only say that you're a liar, you contradict your own answers, you cannot hold a coherent argument, are lacking a fundamental knowledge of the mechanics of NS play, and don't fully understand the examples you are allegedly citing.
I believe that replies to this thread have been overly generous with regards to helping you try and understand the fallacies in your statements. I can only assume that English is not your first language, or you are deliberately failing to comprehend the arguments being put to you.
Your words -
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"How are they penalised for teamplay in this ranking system which is supposed to promote teamplay?" "If his team loses, he would lose points for such actions."
"If you win the match in a higher-ranked game and you were dropping hives during that match, you would be getting more points" "I don't follow you? What are you getting a giant killer bonus for?"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Me -<b> "Neither Halo nor SupCom actively reward pure support players"</b> "You claim I have no knowledge of Halo or SupCom"
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"Again, you're talking of something you have don't have enough knowledge about. " "I didn't claim anything either, I suggested"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Me - "you can't just rank NS on Wins:Losses"
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"Hey, you finally got it!" "this ranking system is based on W:L"
"How can you be choosy in SupCom when it has an automatic match-making system?"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> Pro Tip: For the benefit of those that have not played SupCom, you can <b>choose</b> arranged matches, in order to cook your rank.
Penalising the team for their Commander's error? Basing it all on W:L? People will stack Marines. They won't switch teams, <b>they'll just never play Marines in the first place</b>.
Myth 1 did not REQUIRE 12 evenly skilled players. Myth 2 did not REQUIRE 12 evenly skilled players. Myth 3 did not REQUIRE 12 evenly skilled players.
Ranked vs Unranked - Lets take a leaf out of EA's book, specifically Battlefield. I think we can agree that the Battlefield series has a larger share of the FPS market than Myth ever will. What does EA say?
<i>"The one thing these will all have in common, however, is the lack of pressure to meet the high standard of play we will expect on Ranked servers (i.e. don't be a nuisance, don't break EA's Terms and Conditions and strive to be a team player).... Even if you screw up, nobody's likely to care more than a couple of seconds - after all there are no long-term consequences."</i>
That is NOT current NS "casual" play. NS casual play REQUIRES team players, and there certainly are long term consequences if you're consistently goofing off.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"The games would still be relaxing"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Here's an easy process tree -
You pick Marines. You play very well. Your Comm screws the pooch. You lose because of his mistake. You are personally shafted in points because of him.
That is NOT relaxing. Compare and contrast -
You pick Aliens. You play very well. Nobody is dropping a hive! You drop the hive! You are personally rewarded in spite of the other players.
Which means noone plays Marines, which means NS doesn't work, which means NS dies. You can't automatch around that, because an automatch relies on people wanting to play on either side.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"the players contributing will have more wins than the ones that aren't. It doesn't take too many sessions for the statistics to even out."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Play Marines, play well, lose because of the Comm. Your contribution counts for nothing. Doesn't encourage people to get in the chair, doesn't encourage people to play Marines. I'd like to see how that balances out over time?
The golden rule of any NS ranking system - YOU DO NOT PUNISH TEAMWORK. Your system FAILS because it unduly punishes good teamplayers.
<b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b>
This neither implies, nor states, that ranking serves no purpose in server balance. It is an IF statement, a fundamental of logical reasoning. IF ranking is not used to balance servers, then why have it? Sarisel raised the same point, in that if rank serves no use, then people will not pursue it.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro--> "Counter-strike ... good individual players can match a well prepared teamwork to some extent." "What the hell are you talking about? Did I ever say anything of that sort?"
"the Myth series ... has some very similar elements to Natural selection"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Myth is categorically NOT a team-based objective-driven FPS that REQUIRES players to assume a dedicated support role. NS sessions are NOT "relatively long" - compare and contrast with the likes of Tribes, Unreal Tournament, Enemy Territory, or Battlefield 2142. Furthermore, you MAY play Myth in teams, but it is NOT a requirement. Conversely, NS Classic may ONLY be played in teams. Finally, NS is primarily a tactical FPS, not an RTS.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"all the scoring systems on FPS's seem very uneffective in my opinion, especially on team-based games. None of the statistics encourage teamplay."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Caveat lector, the poster has not played neither Battlefield nor presumably Quake Wars. Those in the know will be able to say "But Battlefield/Quake Wars rewards healing, reviving, and squadding up!!"
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"That's a pretty strong statement taking into consideration that I've responded to every single statement they've made, while they just arbitrarily pick out the passages they wish to criticize."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Pro Tip: A coherent debate revolves around rebutting key phrases in an opponent's argument. <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro--> "I'm so enthusiast (sic) about this system simply because I've already seen it work."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
No you haven't. You haven't seen any NS comparable game ranked using this system. Fact.
Your explanation of RTS multiplayer tactics is risible in the extreme. Its not even remotely tangential to a tactical FPS. Furthermore if Myth actually penalised players for their Leader's poor decisions, then it was a pretty poor system for encouraging teamplay. If anything, it encouraged you only to play with competent Leaders (which is more exclusive than inclusive).
Play more NS, play a wider variety of FPS games, learn more about what you're discussing, and above all, learn how to hold a cogent and coherent argument. <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro--> "Do I need to know how a Ferrari works in order to say that it runs smoothly and better than most cars?"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Yes, yes you do. I take it you've never owned or even drove a Mondial, it'd spoil your Ferrari fantasy in one fell swoop.
Blah, I'm really wasting my time answering to you, Necrosis. You're extremely stubborn and still very difficult to understand in your reasoning, because your statements rarely have anything to do with the quotes you use. In any case, there is not much more I can say without repeating myself. Most of the time you're not hearing me out and it creates a stalemate and sterile discussion. I simply hope others will have gotten a better picture of the system I intended to present.
One last swoop over your observations:
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Flatrick, the take home message is that your post count doesn't confer wisdom, and it is not an indicator of your IQ.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I already explained, I really couldn't care less about my post count, but you just seem to ignore most of what I say.
Yes, you've said that quite a few times already and I think everyone has become pretty aware of where you stand at. You pretend you want to be concise, yet you lash out on every second sentence and keep stating your now obvious opinions.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can only assume that English is not your first language, or you are deliberately failing to comprehend the arguments being put to you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
English is my fifth language, but I reckon I master it well enough to comprehend those arguments.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"How are they penalised for teamplay in this ranking system which is supposed to promote teamplay?" "If his team loses, he would lose points for such actions."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand these citations you make. Are they supposed to be related to each other in some way? And what point are you trying to make with them?
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"If you win the match in a higher-ranked game and you were dropping hives during that match, you would be getting more points" "I don't follow you? What are you getting a giant killer bonus for?"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you think I meant you get a bonus explicitly for dropping hives, you got it all wrong. Plus, you're deliberatedly ignoring the parenthesis which followed the first quote "(for the win though, not specifically for dropping hives)."
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"Again, you're talking of something you have don't have enough knowledge about. " "I didn't claim anything either, I suggested"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, point for you, I did claim that. Thought I had put it in another way. That's one hell of an argument you just pushed through, happy?
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"Hey, you finally got it!" "this ranking system is based on W:L"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and these quotes are supposed to show what exactly?
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"How can you be choosy in SupCom when it has an automatic match-making system?"[/color] Pro Tip: For the benefit of those that have not played SupCom, you can <b>choose</b> arranged matches, in order to cook your rank.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the original quote I reacted to: <i>Picking your games for "maximum rank gain" IS an exploit. People will want a high rank, and all the kudos it would imply. Like in Chess and SupCom, people will be very choosy in their matches, so that its all about big gain and little loss. Which, unfortunately, makes for pretty poor global gameplay.</i>
Since picking your games for maximum rank gain essentially means you can pick your adversaries, you were implying that SupCom players were choosy in their matches by choosing their opponents. However, arranged matches only allows you to choose your partner(s) in a team game. The opponents are not chosen, but are selected by the automatic match-making system.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Myth 1 did not REQUIRE 12 evenly skilled players. Myth 2 did not REQUIRE 12 evenly skilled players. Myth 3 did not REQUIRE 12 evenly skilled players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Myth series was essentially a team-based game. Although you could play it solo, it was nigh impossible to control a whole set of units alone on a 1v1 game. So basically it did require teams. Furthermore, most games consisted of 16 players (evenly skilled if it was ranked).
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ranked vs Unranked - Lets take a leaf out of EA's book, specifically Battlefield. I think we can agree that the Battlefield series has a larger share of the FPS market than Myth ever will. What does EA say?
<i>"The one thing these will all have in common, however, is the lack of pressure to meet the high standard of play we will expect on Ranked servers (i.e. don't be a nuisance, don't break EA's Terms and Conditions and strive to be a team player).... Even if you screw up, nobody's likely to care more than a couple of seconds - after all there are no long-term consequences."</i>
That is NOT current NS "casual" play. NS casual play REQUIRES team players, and there certainly are long term consequences if you're consistently goofing off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what you're saying (and pretend EA is saying as well) is that Battlefield doesn't require teamplayers and that there are no long term consequences if a player is consistently goofing off in Battlefield?
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You pick Aliens. You play very well. Nobody is dropping a hive! You drop the hive! You are personally rewarded in spite of the other players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, you got me convinced. I hope they make an NS2 where the glory for dropping hives all goes exclusively to you.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"the players contributing will have more wins than the ones that aren't. It doesn't take too many sessions for the statistics to even out."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Play Marines, play well, lose because of the Comm. Your contribution counts for nothing. Doesn't encourage people to get in the chair, doesn't encourage people to play Marines. I'd like to see how that balances out over time?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they are not playing for the sake of rank, they will play Marines and Commander like usual (to have fun). If they are only playing to improve their rank, they will play Marines and Commander to get easier points. Once you start getting points in one category, it will get increasingly harder to get more points (as I've tried to show you in the multiple examples before). If you have for example over 500 points in the Aliens category, you may only get 1-5 points for a win and risk losing 20-25 points for a loss. And if you have 0-100 points in the other categories, you would win 20-25 points for a win and only risk losing 1-5 points for a loss. So to get the best overall rank the easiest way is to have roughly the same amount of points in each category.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The golden rule of any NS ranking system - YOU DO NOT PUNISH TEAMWORK. Your system FAILS because it unduly punishes good teamplayers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does my system unduly punish good teamplayers? Please quote me here and explain this part to me the best possible way you can.
If you're referring to the fact that a whole team can be punished because of some mistakes made by a comm, then I'd simply say there was indeed a lack of teamwork; the Commander is a pivotal point in teamwork and if he fails, the teamwork is flawed. The way I see it is that teamwork has one goal only and no other, that is to say a teamwin. All other statistics (such as K:D, weapons used, etc.) are just individual achievements which have nothing to do with teamwork or a teamwin. The scoring system I suggested is based exclusively on Win:Loss and promotes this way teamwork.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b>
This neither implies, nor states, that ranking serves no purpose in server balance. It is an IF statement, a fundamental of logical reasoning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're being extremely annoying and are deliberatedly playing dumb. This statement of yours does not -and thank you for pointing it out for the second time already- imply in itself that the ranking serves no purpose in server balance. However, if you make such a statement, it seems more than apparent that YOU are implying that the ranking serves no purpose in server balance. Otherwise your statement has no use of whatsoever. If you are stupid, you will not understand this. I'm not saying that you are stupid, but can you figure out what I'm implying by that very same statement?
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->IF ranking is not used to balance servers, then why have it? Sarisel raised the same point, in that if rank serves no use, then people will not pursue it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that the part above has been cleared out of the way, I repeat you my question once again: why are you implying that the ranking is not used to balance servers?
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro--> "Counter-strike ... good individual players can match a well prepared teamwork to some extent." "What the hell are you talking about? Did I ever say anything of that sort?"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you trying to make me see some kind of link between these two quotes? The second one is my reply to this: <i>The five best CS players are not going to be the top five overall best NS players, and vv. NS skills do not directly translate to CS skills.</i>
In the first quote, I'm saying that a mix of good CS players can be a match to a good CS team. How do you come up with that translating to "the five best CS players are going to be the top five overall best NS players, and vv"?
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Myth is categorically NOT a team-based objective-driven FPS that REQUIRES players to assume a dedicated support role.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can you be so downright when you've never even played Myth? As I said, the game is made for team-playing. And what makes you say it is not objective-driven? Of course, it had objectives, like any other game for that matter. Also, as I've said, its fast pace makes it similar to any FPS. Only part which you are right about is that there are no players to assume a dedicated support role in Myth.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS sessions are NOT "relatively long" - compare and contrast with the likes of Tribes, Unreal Tournament, Enemy Territory, or Battlefield 2142.9<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find them relatively long, but the adjective is irrelevant. What is of any importance is that Myth and NS sessions have similar durations.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"all the scoring systems on FPS's seem very uneffective in my opinion, especially on team-based games. None of the statistics encourage teamplay."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Caveat lector, the poster has not played neither Battlefield nor presumably Quake Wars. Those in the know will be able to say "But Battlefield/Quake Wars rewards healing, reviving, and squadding up!!"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If these games encourage teamplay through their scoring system, I don't see why the NS developers couldn't try to imitate them. However, Firewater already said that the Battlefield ranking would be useless for balance purposes. If that is the case with Quake Wars as well, then there is no need to even mention the game, because as you said yourself: <i>IF ranking is not used to balance servers, then why have it?</i>
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro--> "Do I need to know how a Ferrari works in order to say that it runs smoothly and better than most cars?"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Yes, yes you do. I take it you've never owned or even drove a Mondial, it'd spoil your Ferrari fantasy in one fell swoop.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That just proves how obdurate you are. You are, or atleast should be, perfectly aware that that is not the case. You don't need to know how everything works in this world in order to judge its functionality. I don't need to know how a plane works for me to say that it's faster than a bicycle; I hope you won't try to contradict that as well. As for your wet dreams with cars, I don't have such fantasies. I just used the Ferrari as a common reference for fast and reliable cars, but that has nothing to do with the kind of cars I drive or want to drive. If I would have cited an Ariel, I doubt you or any other would have even known that I was speaking of a vehicule.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"That's a pretty strong statement taking into consideration that I've responded to every single statement they've made, while they just arbitrarily pick out the passages they wish to criticize."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Pro Tip: A coherent debate revolves around rebutting key phrases in an opponent's argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You most certainly are not a pro on debate, so refrain yourself from giving others tips. You're simply eluding all the questions or arguments you don't wish or can't respond to. Here's a list of passages you have chosen to ignore:
<i>How come? I mean explain me how this ranking system could be exploited?</i> <i>When did I say that a player gets points for a loss too?</i> <i>have you even played the Supreme Commander add-on, Forged Alliance? ... Have YOU ever played a 2v2 and built no offensive units?</i> <i>Unranked doesn't mean you have to play like a child and ranked doesn't mean you have to play like a robot. I don't understand where you got such a misconcieved conception of this kind of division.</i> <i>why does that make a "pretty poor global gameplay"?</i> <i><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> Why are you <strike>saying</strike> implying the ranking serves no purpose in server balance? </i> <i>have you understood how it works yet?</i>
Instead of rambling on and on again, could should take some time to answer these questions first.
<b><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->Oh and one important thing to add for everyone:</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> I just realized I might have remembered slightly wrong how the Myth scoring system works. To come to think of it, the points awarded for all players in a team win or the points substracted in case of a loss were not exactly the same to all players. The weight of a rank was indeed diluted in the average rank of a team and each player of a team would get or lose points accordingly to the average rank of the team versus the average rank of the opposing team. However, there was -I think- some differencies in the distribution of points within the team depending on the rank each player had. So say that team 1 wins and all players should get about 15 points. A much lower-ranked player of that team may even get 20 while a much higher-ranked player of that team may only get 10 points. The same goes for the losing team. Players from team 2 would lose about 15 points, but a low-ranked might only lose 10 points, while a high-ranked might lose 20.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
Wow, that was a lot of text. I'd be won over on a pure win loss ranking system if it wasn't for the fact that it would be horribly inaccurate for matchmaking.
Casual players won't want to play many ranked games so it will be near useless for them. Competitive players won't really need it because they all ready know who they want to play with.
Comments
Either the system would have to rely entirely on everyone on each team having roughly the same generall skill, either it would have to rely entirely or at least partially on everyone on each team having roughly the same skill in each category.
System A: players have about 200 points in their overall rank.
System B: players have about 80 points in the category they're playing (that is to say Commander, Marines or Aliens)
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As we have tried to point out to you<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We? Are you speaking on the behalf of other persons or are you just megalomaniac?
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->, NS rewards supportive players, players that complement their team. I'm not sure how clued up you are, but in NS it's very hard to round up 12 players of equal skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's one of the reasons why a ranking system would fit the game perfectly.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Completely missunderstood" - afraid not, old bean. See, subcategories are going to have to cover this stuff, and that means stat padding. If you only get points when the team wins...... then why play Marines?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, young padawan, still misunderstood.
You should play Marines, because you need points in all categories to achieve the highest possible rank. If you have no or few points in the Marines' category, you win points faster and you lose points slower in that specific category. Plus, you don't risk losing many points.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All that reliance on a Commander, you could play well all round and end up losing for no gain. Whereas with Aliens, there's no Commander and no problem. You further state that points are lost or gained on performance, so again we go back to having to decide what counts and in what situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never stated that points are lost or gained on performance.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Certainly, L4D seems to reward on a situational basis, but then it only has 2 sets of 4 players doing roughly the same job. Not quite the same as 2 different sets of 6 players pursuing different goals.
Let's just reflect for a second. In the space of one post, you say that subcategories don't count, but that they do count. You've said K:D doesn't count, but that it will count. You've said that its all about W:L, but that the points will be handed out even if you lose. Forgive me, but your idea seems to be rapidly losing coherence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I see that you're getting lost.
One of the advantages of the ranking system would exaclty be to actively encourage players to act defensively as well and reaping the exact same benefits as the most aggressive players on the team. This is what YOU don't understand.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It allows for a bunch of skilled Marines to save the day despite their middling (and sometimes meddling) Comm. RTS and FPS games reward cooperation, but there are very few that reward PURE support.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not very few. I'd say few or maybe even some. But, again, what does this have to do anything with the topic?
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Taking an ELO system as an example - if pubs play league players and win, their ranking shoots up exponentially. If the league guys win, their ranking barely moves. The reverse is true when considering losses (assuming other players are playing equals). Now break that down to an individual level - why would a high tier player want to jeopardise their ranking by potentially losing to a green recruit? Further, a league player plays only a fraction of the number of "proper" (and by that I mean gaming outside of training) games than a pubber will. This only further stacks the ranks in the pubbers favour, since he has more games against a wide variety of opponents - everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Conversely, the high tier player has fewer games, and against players of equal skill - giving them a fairly stationary position but one prone to catastrophic failure if they are unlucky on a pub server.
I mean, in one fell stroke we manage to turn a system of segregation for enjoyable gameplay into one where the wedge is driven more deeply than ever before. Its just completely counter to its intended purpose!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a hard time to follow you as I don't understand the mechanism of an ELO system.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exploiting the ranking system - picking your games so that the loss is minimal, the gain is maximal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not an exploit. When having such a ranking system, if you manually choose the games you enter into or if you're able to select/kick players which can join your game, you are forced to play with players with roughly the same rank as you in order to have minimal loss and maximal gain. Therefore, you're playing against others who have roughly the same skill as you and get the best gaming experience possible.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Spending the game racking up individual kills rather than supporting your team. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION this is taken into account in "subcategories" and counts for, or against, you when the round is over. I should think the result is pretty clear.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You still got it wrong. Read above.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the restricting effects of rank - the whole principle of a ranking system is to allow balanced and enjoyable matches. Second, this forum is discussing rank restriction on servers, so one must highlight the flaws in THIS system if it were adopted for generating rank.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, point taken.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b> People have leagues to tell them how good their team is compared to others. If ranking is there "just because", then its a wang competition, and NS doesnt need people that think their rank is more important than their team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> Why are you saying the ranking serves no purpose in server balance?
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here is the take home message - NS should allow all players to play against each other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the matchmaking is automatic, it would be extremely improbable that the number one player would ever play a game with a beginner who plays his first game. And I don't see how this could be inconvenient in any way. If this newbie is a friend of yours who you would want to play with, you could simply join an unranked game.
If the matchmaking is manual, it's up to the players to choose their opponents and teammates, but normally there shouldn't be humonguous discrepancies between ranks.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Individual ranking is at best an indicator that allows Admins to balance their servers in terms of skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a game balance relies on admins, it's completely useless.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ranking should allow for enjoyable games across a certain range. Adopting an ELO style system effectively DEMANDS that players stick with their own ranks or higher, and play fairly predictable games for fear of losing a GLOBAL rank.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The range can be modified into a desirable proportion by altering the weight that rank plays in the number of points you win or lose. So the "ranking would allow for enjoyable games across a certains range."
Again, you might want to play with your lower skilled buddies (perhaps on unranked games), but the majority of the time players just want their teammates and opponents to have roughly the same skill as themselves. At least, that is my case.
<!--quoteo(post=1676909:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for ranked and unranked...... Last I was aware, players tend to prefer the Ranked servers to Unranked ones. Probably because there is much less mucking about, and certainly because Ranked servers tend to give skill/exp/item perks over time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, generally games which have global ranks have pretty much the same amount of ranked and unranked games.
<!--quoteo(post=1676911:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:34 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 05:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676911"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is escalating into a drawn-out essay writing contest with no clear description of what is being discussed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately yes.
I doubt that the sequel to Natural Selection will be as small a game as it is now.
In addition, you're being a bit contadictory when talking about competitive players. Either they seldom play on public servers (as you first indicated), in which case they would not interfere with public play and leaderboards. Either they play more or less often on public servers (as you now say), in which case they would have a suficient rank to not interfere with public play or leaderboards.
<!--quoteo(post=1676912:date=Apr 27 2008, 06:31 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 27 2008, 06:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676912"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The 5 best players in counter strike would not be on any developer created leaderboard, your point falls apart based on that fact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would it fall apart based on that fact? If Counter-strike would have some kind of effective global ranking system, you could spot the 5 best players on the leaderboard. Aside from the existence of such a ranking system, my point was just to show you that good individual players can match a well prepared teamwork to some extent.
<!--quoteo(post=1676912:date=Apr 27 2008, 06:31 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 27 2008, 06:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676912"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The fact that they don't care about their rank jeopardizes the whole system. Competitive players would be "under-rated" according to this system, but would shake up the system enough to disrupt the balance in the game, thus creating more false statistics. This is part of the reason why a leader-board style of balancing fails. See Sarasiel's post for more reasons why its flawed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've only discussed the reasons why competitive players would only have a minor effect on rankings. And, in any case, they could (and would?) play on unranked public servers, which would have a mixed range of skills, rather than on ranked servers at beginner levels.
If the matchmaking is automatic, it's up to the game developers to figure that out. On Supreme Commander, the rank difference is made the smallest possible. But the longer it takes for the system to find gaming partners the less strict it becomes in regard to rank difference.
<!--quoteo(post=1676658:date=Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When players join a server, will they sign a virtual agreement to only play as a commander (or not to play as a commander), only as a fade (or not as a fade), only as a marine (or not as a marine, or only using certain weapons)?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the matchmaking is manual, it's up to the game developers again to make a choice. But, if I were to decide, I'd say players would partner up either as aliens or marines (their overall and category points being visible to everyone). Then, the marine players should have to vote for their commander (which would need to accept the post). If subcategories would exist, those points could also be visible and as such they could be an indication for players of what weapons they're good at as marines or what creatures they're good at as aliens. So, eventually, players could already even decide what specific roles they would play.
Also, either the server should allow only a certain range of ranks to enter, either the players should be able to kick other players out.
<!--quoteo(post=1676658:date=Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we are going to split the individual skill into subsections for commander, alien, and marine - then when we combine them back together again (or even if we don't) how do we know who is going to play as what?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keep in mind that in a ranked game all players would need to play from the beginning till the end. So, the game developers could easily design a game lobby in which players could arrange themselves in teams and discuss strategies even before the session would start.
<!--quoteo(post=1676658:date=Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only saving grace I can think of for this is that really skilled players are just better overall at everything - then a value could be assigned.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A truelly skilled player always is an all-around master.
<!--quoteo(post=1676658:date=Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 23 2008, 08:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676658"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, what level of "better" warrants restriction of entry to servers? I'm not really comfortable with this idea and never have been.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You would always have access to servers, since there would always be open servers to your level (either based on overall rank or category rank).
Problems that come to mind:
1. For the commander: how do you tell if it is the commander's fault that the team lost or if he just got a bad marine team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't. He's part of the losing team, so he loses (points).
<!--quoteo(post=1676769:date=Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676769"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2. For the aliens: if stats are based on wins, there is nothing that will tell you what role a particular alien player is going to take in any particular game. For example, there are many players who are piss-poor at skulking but can lerk very well or gorge very well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Different alien-species could represent different subcategories. If you have most wins as a skulk, you have most of your alien points in the skulk subcategory.
<!--quoteo(post=1676769:date=Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676769"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3. For the marines: a mirror image of the problem with the commander<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The points you would have in your commander category would be an indication of your skill as a commander since it would direclty refer to your Win:Loss ratio in all games in which you've played as a commander.
<!--quoteo(post=1676769:date=Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676769"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->4. Incentive - not everybody plays to win, nor should they be forced to in order to maintain some kind of rank<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why there could be unranked games as well.
<!--quoteo(post=1676769:date=Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 24 2008, 11:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676769"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->5. How to distinguish between the contributions of players in each game? Who actually carries the team versus who gets carried?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't distinguish contributions, otherwise you end up with statwhoring. It's a teamwin or a teamloss.
In any case, in the long run, players who contribute the most to wins will have better Win:Loss ratios than other players and have better ranks.
Because the ability to dominate a ranked pub server differs from the ability to dominate a competitive match.
You are assuming that time spent playing in a pub is equal to time spent playing in a controlled environment. You are assuming your leaderboard all stars would have all the great tactics and strategies that a professional team like 3D or SK would have. You are assuming that they would have developed the mind games and such that the professional teams have. What I am saying to you is that if you take those 5 leaderboard players and put them any professional CS team, they would NOT win. Guarenteed.
On another note, directed to Flatrick - Splitting one reply over TEN POSTS is tantamount to spamming, and your postcount won't gain you any kudos here, my friend.
I'll reply as concisely as possible, for the sake of everyone's sanity and to maintain the coherence of the thread.
Flatrick -
"It'd be nice to have it" is NOT a good reason for a design imperative. If it doesn't work, it doesn't go in, no matter how nice it would be. That's just a fact of the dev process. It is not up to the devs to magically endow players with skill.
Excellent commanders, excellent Marines, and excellent Aliens are all three different categories gaining points in three different ways, and ranking only means that people will choose to pad their rank by picking the role most likely to give points - regardless of how good or bad they are at it. You cannot arbitrarily rank three different roles the same way, and at the same time you cannot selectively weight the three different roles. Players should not be penalised for teamplay, period.
Regarding weighting - you imply that dropping a hive in a high skill game is "worth more" than dropping a hive in a low skill game? Ridiculous.
You say a player only gets points for a team win, but then you say that a player gets points for a loss too. Make your mind up, refine your point system, because at the moment it's less than babble.
A strategically poor move CAN benefit the individual. SC first followed by Walls of Lame. Or your favourite chamber followed by early Fade. Since you get points for losing (made your mind up on that yet?) then even if I lose I'll have a stack of points because I got a lot of assists and damage points.
If points are weighted by "average skill" then by extension you MUST get a giant killer bonus. You agree, and then you disagree. Have you made your mind up yet?
For your clarification, in simple terms, SupCom is not a team based game where offensively weak players can play a phenomenal support role. It allows people to play cooperatively, not supportively. Two cooperative players will thrash one player and his support buddy. Simple numbers plus the micro advantage of being able to coordinate two attacks. In NS, Marines DEMAND a pure support player (the Comm), and Aliens can be very successful with a dedicated support gorge. It is unfortunate that you cannot see the difference. You claim I have no knowledge of Halo or SupCom - I find this interesting considering you have never played Halo. So how does this put you into a position to judge, mm? You have spectacularly missed the point, despite referencing it - SupCom rewards COOPERATIVE play, it does not reward a PURE SUPPORT PLAYER. If you disagree, hop into 2v2 and build no offensive units. Good luck.
If you don't understand how ELO rating works, you shouldn't be shooting your mouth off about SupCom's system. More importantly, perhaps you should make it your business to know how it works, so that when you do write a cheque with your mouth, you're able to cash it. You can't just say "Oh look how X system works, its great" and then say "Actually I don't know how X system works, nor do I care to learn how it does". Its sheer ignorance and serves no part in constructive debate.
You say that I finally "get it" when I say that you cannot rank NS on W:L - yet you suggest that NS *should* be ranked purely on W:L. Have you made your mind up yet?
Penalising a team for their Comm only leads back to the dark days of NS when any mistake by a Comm led to cries of "NOOB COMM" and a chair kick. By encouraging that situation, you effectively lose any and all credibility you may have had. You cannot penalise one side explicitly because of their unique playstyle. It only leads to players stacking the other side, and that kills NS.
You cannot generate a system for NS that REQUIRES 12+ players of uniform skill levels. I personally have not heard of anyone even attempting such a system, let alone succeeding. As has been stated to you, the only section of the community that could possibly achieve this task would be those competing in a League, in which case they have their own ways of allocating rank - useless to the global community.
I don't know why you haven't figured this out, but the average NS player wants to play with his friends. He wants an enjoyable game with people he knows. He does NOT want to be FORCED into a situation where EVERY game he plays MUST be at the best of his ability, or face ostracism. Even League players enjoy "off time". No, its not a case of "then play on unranked servers", because NS is more than a two tier system of "competing" or "casual". You simply cannot propose a system that boils down to "Play like a robot or play like a child", because it ruins the fun and enjoyment of playing the game. Its just not sinking in, is it?
What you have failed to grasp, grasshopper, is that playing as Marines under your system involves more risk than gain. You have stated a good team crippled by their Comm should be punished. Considering that there are more green Comms than great Comms, it makes more sense to be on an Alien team that will allow you to win despite the presence of a single bad player.
You claim not to have stated that points are gained or lost on performance, which is a lie, as not only have you said that only wins count for points, you have also said that wins AND losses count for points. <b>Have you made your mind up yet?</b>
Picking your games for "maximum rank gain" IS an exploit. People will want a high rank, and all the kudos it would imply. Like in Chess and SupCom, people will be very choosy in their matches, so that its all about big gain and little loss. Which, unfortunately, makes for pretty poor global gameplay.
You missed the bold text, so I'll put it here again - <b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b> I did not say it serves no purpose, I said <b>if</b> it serves no purpose. I trust you have the cognitive ability to understand the difference.
Implementing a ranking system because "it would be nice", with it having no other effect than being an eWang system, is a waste of developer time and effort. If it goes in, it goes in for a purpose. Since you haven't decided how your ranking system "works", it really shouldn't be going in. Or have you made your mind up yet?
Here's a headline for you - the top ranked players will still want to play relaxing, fun games. Firewater can explain this better to you than I ever could. Furthermore, as pointed out above, you don't just say "oh, play unranked", because such two tier systems don't work. One needs only look at any Battlefield game, where Ranked is dominant. Indeed, why waste your time playing Unranked with people who just want to drag out the game for "fun" or go mass Onos and sit on an IP lunch munching every spawner? People flock to Ranked servers, so Ranked servers have to be made enjoyable to play. Enforced 6v6 uniform player with Rank penalties is a killer of the global community. I don't know how little Battlefield you've played, but people want those unlocks, and that means Ranked play. You should take a look at the BF website, because it even explains that on Unranked servers it is NOT a necessity to play cooperatively.
I should think the logical inference is obvious, but just to make it easy, the point is that NS demands cooperative play, at all times. There are many levels of cooperative play, but it is a necessity, not an option. A Marine relies on his Comm and vv, a Fade relies on those Gorges dropping chambers and hives.
The five best CS players are not going to be the top five overall best NS players, and vv. NS skills do not directly translate to CS skills. CS players might make stellar marines, but crappy Comms. This doesn't mean either game is "best", it just means that they're different. This much alone should be blatantly obvious. Further, competitive players should NOT be particularly advantaged or disadvantaged when it comes to a GLOBAL ranking system. Your system fails in this regard, which makes it useless.
As to your replies to the other posters, you continue with contradictory "points-don't-count-but-do" and further refer to "subcategories-which-can-be-dropped-but-no-actually-we-do-need-them". <b>Have you made your mind up yet?</b>
Why don't you take a weekend, sit down, write out a cogent idea, and then come back with it. That would help a lot.
Finally, you're wasting a lot of time in your posts taking pot shots than actually making your mind up as to how your alleged point system works. That's probably not a wise move if you want to keep posting in the forum. It definitely isn't a wise move when you don't even have a coherent argument to begin with...
You are assuming that time spent playing in a pub is equal to time spent playing in a controlled environment. You are assuming your leaderboard all stars would have all the great tactics and strategies that a professional team like 3D or SK would have. You are assuming that they would have developed the mind games and such that the professional teams have. What I am saying to you is that if you take those 5 leaderboard players and put them any professional CS team, they would NOT win. Guarenteed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This discussion cannot go anywhere since both of us are only speculating.
However, in my opinion, and having played a lot of counter-strike in a controlled environment as well as public servers, I know for a fact (and ain't just assuming) that there are excellent individual players both on public servers and clans. I have seen some extraordinary players take out entire professionnal teams by themselves. The tactics involved in teamplay in Counter-strike are relatively limited (compared at least to some other FPS's) and the maps are small enough for improvised strategies. In some public servers, with regular players, you can even reach a somewhat cohesive teamwork.
So, again, if you take the 5 best individual players out there, I'm pretty sure their fragging talents are enough to take out the opposing team. And you have to take into account that they're not completely unaware of teamplay elements, especially if they already play or have played in a clan.
However, in my opinion, and having played a lot of counter-strike in a controlled environment as well as public servers, I know for a fact (and ain't just assuming) that there are excellent individual players both on public servers and clans. I have seen some extraordinary players take out entire professionnal teams by themselves. The tactics involved in teamplay in Counter-strike are relatively limited (compared at least to some other FPS's) and the maps are small enough for improvised strategies. In some public servers, with regular players, you can even reach a somewhat cohesive teamwork.
So, again, if you take the 5 best individual players out there, I'm pretty sure their fragging talents are enough to take out the opposing team. And you have to take into account that they're not completely unaware of teamplay elements, especially if they already play or have played in a clan.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you take the top 5 leaderboard players and put them against team 3D or any other professional team. They will LOSE. Not only do these teams put in a good amount of time, their ability for teamwork will be much greater than those from people who just have leaderboard statistics.
Did those same extraordinary players take out those professional players in a controlled enviornment? Or a public server game which means nothing.
So AGAIN, your argument is pretty much epic fail.
Wins:losses doesn't work for several reasons. Winning doesn't tell you very much about what happened during the game, what caused the win/loss, and how close the game was. It doesn't tell you how well you played in a particular role - only that you played those roles and won/lost. Just because one person is ranked higher, there is no indication of how well that person actually plays - the only information is that this player has been on winning teams more often than a lower ranked player. I am very doubtful that this kind of system would help balance skill.
Limiting access to servers based on rank doesn't work for <a href="http://unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=104102" target="_blank">several reasons</a>.
This is ridiculous. You're not clarifying anything...you're confused and just making everything seem even more complicated. In addition, you constantly digress.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On another note, directed to Flatrick - Splitting one reply over TEN POSTS is tantamount to spamming, and your postcount won't gain you any kudos here, my friend.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could bearly keep myself from laughing out loud when I read that. Are you being serious? No, I mean like serious serious?
I'm so far from searching any kind of kudos on this forum as you possibly could imagine. My time is precious (everyone's is, I gather that, but I'm on a particularly busy schedule) and it took me some time to even consider posting my suggestion (which is the only thing I wanted to add to any discussions that take place) here. I get plenty of kudos elsewhere, so believe me when I say that I'm not in any kind of quest for recognition.
As usual, you get off topic and even personal. Like I said at the very beginning of my initial post "If I'm making this effort to share my opinion, it is solely because I like Natural selection (a lot) and would like its sequel to be as perfect as possible."
As for me splitting my reply, it's due to this forum's restriction for the number of quotes within a reply and its overall length. Not much I can do about that, besides I don't see what drastic difference it would make to have my whole response within one thread since it's divided in chronological order.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'll reply as concisely as possible, for the sake of everyone's sanity and to maintain the coherence of the thread.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your unnecessarily lengthy comments are actually the reason why my own replies become so cumbersome...
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Flatrick -
"It'd be nice to have it" is NOT a good reason for a design imperative. If it doesn't work, it doesn't go in, no matter how nice it would be. That's just a fact of the dev process. It is not up to the devs to magically endow players with skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you aren't quoting any specific passage, I can just assume that you are talking about the ranking system. There's plenty of reasons (given in this and other posts) which justify such a system and it has nothing to do with endowing players with skill.
In a sense, yes, but not in the sens you meant I fear. People will have to play all three categories for them to hope to get the best rank. That means that they will sometimes pick a category instead of another, because they have less points in the former.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You cannot arbitrarily rank three different roles the same way, and at the same time you cannot selectively weight the three different roles.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? Besides, I already said that the weight of the rank in match-making (be it automatic or manual) could entirely or partially be attributed to a specific category (such as commander, marines or aliens).
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Players should not be penalised for teamplay, period.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come again? How are they penalised for teamplay in this ranking system which is supposed to promote teamplay?
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Regarding weighting - you imply that dropping a hive in a high skill game is "worth more" than dropping a hive in a low skill game? Ridiculous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a sense, yes. If you win the match in a higher-ranked game and you were dropping hives during that match, you would be getting more points (for the win though, not specifically for dropping hives).
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You say a player only gets points for a team win, but then you say that a player gets points for a loss too. Make your mind up, refine your point system, because at the moment it's less than babble.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? Where? When? When did I say that a player gets points for a loss too? If I did, that is a typo, because a player that loses a game loses points (which represent the same amount of points which are gained by the winner).
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A strategically poor move CAN benefit the individual. SC first followed by Walls of Lame. Or your favourite chamber followed by early Fade. Since you get points for losing (made your mind up on that yet?) then even if I lose I'll have a stack of points because I got a lot of assists and damage points.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, I hope someone else would please comment on your observations in order for me to see whether I'm really that bad of an explainer or if you're just slow at comprehending things.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If points are weighted by "average skill" then by extension you MUST get a giant killer bonus. You agree, and then you disagree. Have you made your mind up yet?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't follow you? What are you getting a giant killer bonus for?
Just by curiosity, have you even played the Supreme Commander add-on, Forged Alliance?
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In NS, Marines DEMAND a pure support player (the Comm), and Aliens can be very successful with a dedicated support gorge. It is unfortunate that you cannot see the difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see the slight nuance perhaps, but not the difference.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You claim I have no knowledge of Halo or SupCom<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. First of all, I didn't say anything about your knowledge regarding Halo. Second of all, I didn't claim anything either, I suggested that it was probable that you were unaware of how Supreme Commander operates.
You seriously need to pay a lot more of attention to what is said before claiming this and that.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- I find this interesting considering you have never played Halo. So how does this put you into a position to judge, mm? You have spectacularly missed the point, despite referencing it - SupCom rewards COOPERATIVE play, it does not reward a PURE SUPPORT PLAYER. If you disagree, hop into 2v2 and build no offensive units. Good luck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, "missed the point"? Are you still aware of what this topic is about?
As for Supreme Commander, you should watch some replays of top players who play supportive (and not cooperative) roles. Have YOU ever played a 2v2 and built no offensive units? Try it and you might learn something.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you don't understand how ELO rating works, you shouldn't be shooting your mouth off about SupCom's system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was primarily presenting how the Myth's system works and just praising the automatic match-making of Supreme Commander (much less its scoring system).
Anyway, you're merely trying to be offensive. Do I need to know how a Ferrari works in order to say that it runs smoothly and better than most cars?
Interesting choice of words: "constructive debate"
Yes, I can and yes I did do just that. I'll let others with more knowledge about that system take the relay and discuss it with you. I wish them good luck!
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You say that I finally "get it" when I say that you cannot rank NS on W:L - yet you suggest that NS *should* be ranked purely on W:L. Have you made your mind up yet?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I've made up my mind: we have communication issues.
When I said "you get it", I meant that you finally understood what I initially had explained: this ranking system is based on W:L. I wasn't referring to your remarks about this ranking system.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Penalising a team for their Comm only leads back to the dark days of NS when any mistake by a Comm led to cries of "NOOB COMM" and a chair kick.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes and no. If you got 0 points in the commander category, you are indeed a noob and are going to play at noob levels. If someone shouts at you "NOOB COMM", they're not that far from the truth, are they? Of course, players could have some sense of politness, especially at beginner levels and realize that everyone has to learn by trial and mistake.
If a comm makes mistakes at higher levels which he shouldn't have done based on his experience (aka points), players would again have the right to be frustrated at their comm.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By encouraging that situation, you effectively lose any and all credibility you may have had. You cannot penalise one side explicitly because of their unique playstyle. It only leads to players stacking the other side, and that kills NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you mean by penalising "one side explicitly because of their unique playstyle" and "It only leads to players stacking the other side"?
If you're suggesting players will change their side when a Comm sucks, that is of course not possible in a ranked game. They can't switch teams in the middle of a session.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You cannot generate a system for NS that REQUIRES 12+ players of uniform skill levels. I personally have not heard of anyone even attempting such a system, let alone succeeding.
As has been stated to you, the only section of the community that could possibly achieve this task would be those competing in a League, in which case they have their own ways of allocating rank - useless to the global community.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Myth 1, Myth 2, Myth 3...but I agree with you on one point. There are few games with in-game global rankings with some sort of match-making and few games which allow 12+ gamers to play simultaneously. The combined effect of these two facts is that there are very few games that both allow 12+ gamers to play simultaneously and have an in-game global ranking system with some sort of match-making.
However, that only means that such systems are rare, not impossible to generate. And I don't see why that should be a difficult task, especially if you bear in mind that Natural Selection 2 (commercialized) should have a much larger gamer community than its predecessor (simple mod).
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know why you haven't figured this out, but the average NS player wants to play with his friends.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had a lot of friends on Myth whom I played with both on ranked and unranked games.
If you're friends play roughly as much as you (which is often the case), they will be able to play the same ranked games as you.
If you're friends play more or less than you, you can still play together on unranked games.
In any case, neither you or I can say what the average NS player wants, let alone what the average NS2 player will want. Personally, I just want to play with roughly the same level as me, with roughly even teams, in order to have the most challenging and enjoyable game possible. If friends are included, that's even better.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He wants an enjoyable game with people he knows. He does NOT want to be FORCED into a situation where EVERY game he plays MUST be at the best of his ability, or face ostracism.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's not forced to play ranked games, he can play unranked games much in the same fashion as he would now with the current Natural Selection.
Unranked games would be perfect for "off time" for any player.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, its not a case of "then play on unranked servers", because NS is more than a two tier system of "competing" or "casual". You simply cannot propose a system that boils down to "Play like a robot or play like a child", because it ruins the fun and enjoyment of playing the game. Its just not sinking in, is it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unranked doesn't mean you have to play like a child and ranked doesn't mean you have to play like a robot. I don't understand where you got such a misconcieved conception of this kind of division. All games which propose a leaderboard also have an unranked section and it never has ruined the fun nor enjoyment of playing the game, be it in ranked or unranked.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What you have failed to grasp, grasshopper, is that playing as Marines under your system involves more risk than gain. You have stated a good team crippled by their Comm should be punished. Considering that there are more green Comms than great Comms, it makes more sense to be on an Alien team that will allow you to win despite the presence of a single bad player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, I must have explained this part about 5 times already. I'll try to take you through it step by step:
1. You have 210 points in your overall ranking. You have 100 points in Comm category and 100 points in Alien category, but only 10 points in your Marine category.
2. You play with players having an average rank of 210 points. The average number of points they have in the specific categories they play is 100.
3. The scoring weight can either be based entirely or partially on players' overall ranking (210 points) or on the category players are playing (100 points). This should be decided by the developers (possibly after a beta-testing?).
4. The scoring is based entirely on the overall ranking (210 points).
4.a. You play the commander.
4.a.i. You win the game. You get 15 points, which are added to your commander category (making it 115 points) and your overall score (making it 225 points).
4.a.ii. You lose the game. You lose 15 points, which are substracted from your commander category (making it 85 points) and your overall score (making it 195 points).
4.b. You play a marine.
4.b.i. You win the game. You get You get 15 points, which are added to your marine category (making it 25 points) and your overall score (making it 225 points).
4.b.ii. You lose the game. You lose 10 points (and not 15 points since you only have 10 points in your marine category), which are substracted from your marine category (making it 0 points) and your overall score (making it 200 points).
5. The scoring is based entirely on the category each player is playing (100 points).
5.a. You play the commander. <b>Note that the weight of your rank in this specific category remains the same as in the overall rank.</b>
5.a.i. You win the game. You get 15 points, which are added to your commander category (making it 115 points) and your overall score (making it 225 points).
5.a.ii. You lose the game. You lose 15 points, which are substracted from your commander category (making it 85 points) and your overall score (making it 195 points).
5.b. You play a marine. <b>Note that the weight of your rank in this specific category is no the same as in the overall rank. Hence, your team's average rank will be slightly lower than the one of the other team. This basically means you will win more points in case of a win and lose less points in case of a loss.</b>
5.b.i. You win the game. You get You get 21 points (like all your teammates), which are added to your marine category (making it 31 points) and your overall score (making it 231 points).
5.b.ii. You lose the game. You lose 9 points, which are substracted from your marine category (making it 1 point) and your overall score (making it 201 points).
I hope you get it this time. You need to play all categories for 3 reasons:
- You win more points in case of a win
- You lose less points in case of a loss
- You can never go below 0 points in one particular category
The algorithms involved might be a little bit more complex than what I've portrayed here, but I guess the developers could simply contact Bungie in order to get a closer look at their scoring system.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You claim not to have stated that points are gained or lost on performance, which is a lie, as not only have you said that only wins count for points, you have also said that wins AND losses count for points. <b>Have you made your mind up yet?</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you quote me please?
And even if you're right, it's an unfortunate mistake by my part, not a lie. And even that is besides the point, since now you finally understand where I was initially heading at.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Picking your games for "maximum rank gain" IS an exploit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it's not, but I guess that that would be subjective.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People will want a high rank, and all the kudos it would imply. Like in Chess and SupCom, people will be very choosy in their matches, so that its all about big gain and little loss. Which, unfortunately, makes for pretty poor global gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LoL, and you're telling me that you know SupCom? How can you be choosy in SupCom when it has an automatic match-making system?
A part from that, why does that make a "pretty poor global gameplay"? It just encourages people of roughly the same skill-level to play together. And, as I've repeatedly told you before, an automatic match-making system wouldn't allow players to pick anything.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You missed the bold text, so I'll put it here again - <b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b> I did not say it serves no purpose, I said <b>if</b> it serves no purpose. I trust you have the cognitive ability to understand the difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh my goodness, you're being quite the pain in the...ok, let me rephrase that then: <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> Why are you <strike>saying</strike> implying the ranking serves no purpose in server balance?
I have, but have you understood how it works yet?
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here's a headline for you - the top ranked players will still want to play relaxing, fun games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The games would still be relaxing, but just in case there is still unranked games.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Firewater can explain this better to you than I ever could.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't doubt anyone could be more intelligible than you are.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Furthermore, as pointed out above, you don't just say "oh, play unranked", because such two tier systems don't work. One needs only look at any Battlefield game, where Ranked is dominant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look at other games then.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Indeed, why waste your time playing Unranked with people who just want to drag out the game for "fun" or go mass Onos and sit on an IP lunch munching every spawner?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that is your conception of unranked games, I hope I'll never encounter you on such terrain.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People flock to Ranked servers, so Ranked servers have to be made enjoyable to play. Enforced 6v6 uniform player with Rank penalties is a killer of the global community. I don't know how little Battlefield you've played, but people want those unlocks, and that means Ranked play. You should take a look at the BF website, because it even explains that on Unranked servers it is NOT a necessity to play cooperatively.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I've already said, I've never played battlefield.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I should think the logical inference is obvious, but just to make it easy, the point is that NS demands cooperative play, at all times. There are many levels of cooperative play, but it is a necessity, not an option. A Marine relies on his Comm and vv, a Fade relies on those Gorges dropping chambers and hives.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other words, players would have to play cooperatively even on unranked games. Which I guess they would, if it's "not an option".
What the hell are you talking about? Did I ever say anything of that sort? Geez, you really like to ramble.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CS players might make stellar marines, but crappy Comms. This doesn't mean either game is "best", it just means that they're different. This much alone should be blatantly obvious. Further, competitive players should NOT be particularly advantaged or disadvantaged when it comes to a GLOBAL ranking system. Your system fails in this regard, which makes it useless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes they should, if they fail to play on public servers.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As to your replies to the other posters, you continue with contradictory "points-don't-count-but-do" and further refer to "subcategories-which-can-be-dropped-but-no-actually-we-do-need-them". <b>Have you made your mind up yet?</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same as above.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why don't you take a weekend, sit down, write out a cogent idea, and then come back with it. That would help a lot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, why don't you take a weekend, buy Myth II, test the game online, and then come back after you've understood what the scoring system is all about. THAT would help a lot.
My idea was crystal clear and concise in the first place, but it might seem incoherent to you, especially now that I've had to repeat and detail every aspect of it.
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Finally, you're wasting a lot of time in your posts taking pot shots than actually making your mind up as to how your alleged point system works. That's probably not a wise move if you want to keep posting in the forum. It definitely isn't a wise move when you don't even have a coherent argument to begin with...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't plan to post in the forum in the future, since this was the only major flaw I could see with the sequel that hadn't been resolved on this forum.
Let's say one of the players from team 3D qualifies as one of the top 5 players in the world. He would then excel as an individual player and would have excellent knowledge on teamwork play. A mix of such players could come up with good tactics in no time.
<!--quoteo(post=1676956:date=Apr 27 2008, 07:18 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 27 2008, 07:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676956"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Did those same extraordinary players take out those professional players in a controlled enviornment? Or a public server game which means nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a controlled environment. I've seen some pretty amazing things on the <a href="http://www.xfire.com/cms/xf_trophy/" target="_blank">X-Fire Trophy</a> which gets aired on French TV.
<!--quoteo(post=1676956:date=Apr 27 2008, 07:18 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 27 2008, 07:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676956"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So AGAIN, your argument is pretty much epic fail.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty lame to come to such conclusions even before I've been able to answer you.
On winning teams that he has helped to win...
<!--quoteo(post=1676958:date=Apr 27 2008, 07:23 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 07:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676958"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am very doubtful that this kind of system would help balance skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This system worked on the Myth series which has some very similar elements to Natural selection:
- It's team-based
- It's got a multiplayer support for over 12 players
- It's an RTS, but heavily oriented on fast-paced action
- The sessions are relatively long
So there is an element of comparison.
Wow - you just rebuked my argument in 9 words! Come on... don't you see that you're <b>ASSUMING</b> that every player helps to win? With this system, cannon fodder is just as good as the cavalry.
<!--quoteo(post=1676979:date=Apr 27 2008, 04:32 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 27 2008, 04:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676979"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This system worked on the Myth series which has some very similar elements to Natural selection:
- It's team-based
- It's got a multiplayer support for over 12 players
- It's an RTS, but heavily oriented on fast-paced action
- The sessions are relatively long
So there is an element of comparison.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, but we're specifically talking about NS here. So what about the entire FPS element of it? Or does that not strike you as being important? It does, after all, introduce all kinds of complications in the sense of player interactions, contributions, and teamwork that make win-based ranking inappropriate, as I have been trying to show by mentioning individual contributions. Not everybody contributes the same to get a win or loss.
I'm also really tempted to jump into the two parallel conversations with Necrosis and Firewater, although they're both capable of defending their ideas... but you're not addressing the core of their points in your rebuttals. A superficial response does not really deflect the weight of the arguments. For example:
- FW states that professional teams that have played together for a long time will beat a team made of a handful of the top pub players. You state that they could. However, in all likelihood they would need time to get used to one another before they could be a functional team. You say that they could do this in no time. What is this statement based on? What the hell does this even have to do with supporting this ranking system that you're suggesting? It just seems like this is degenerating into a "I'm right you're wrong" kind of argument for ANY point (or segment of a post) presented, rather than tying it back to the main topic at hand. This is what causes topics to become useless.
I didn't rebuke you, but I guess I'm just getting annoyed at repeating myself...oh well, here it goes: you're not completely wrong, some players will contibute more than others in a teamwin. However, on the long run, the players contributing will have more wins than the ones that aren't. It doesn't take too many sessions for the statistics to even out.
This might be a bit troublesome at beginner levels, but a noob will never get miraculous wins one after the other and just ride the ranks by winging winning teams.
To make it even more clear, in Myth II, I could have probably won 95% of my games if I played solo. The problem was that I couldn't because my rank weighed to much on the scoring and I could only hope to win 1 point per game, while losing (the maximum amount of) 32 points for a loss. When I played in a team, the weight of my rank was diluted in the teams average rank, but consequently I only won about 60% of my games. I knew I contributed the most for the wins, but that didn't bother me as I would accumulate more wins/points than others on the long run.
<!--quoteo(post=1676980:date=Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok, but we're specifically talking about NS here. So what about the entire FPS element of it? Or does that not strike you as being important?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It does, but as I've said before, all the scoring systems on FPS's seem very uneffective in my opinion, especially on team-based games. None of the statistics encourage teamplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1676980:date=Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It does, after all, introduce all kinds of complications in the sense of player interactions, contributions, and teamwork that make win-based ranking inappropriate, as I have been trying to show by mentioning individual contributions. Not everybody contributes the same to get a win or loss.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This doesn't vary because of the type of game...players in an RTS can contribute just as much to a win as FPS players. For example, in the Myth series, players could be in charge of just a few or even one single unit (with multiple actions such as in an FPS game).
<!--quoteo(post=1676980:date=Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm also really tempted to jump into the two parallel conversations with Necrosis and Firewater, although they're both capable of defending their ideas... but you're not addressing the core of their points in your rebuttals. A superficial response does not really deflect the weight of the arguments. For example:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a pretty strong statement taking into consideration that I've responded to every single statement they've made, while they just arbitrarily pick out the passages they wish to criticize.
<!--quoteo(post=1676980:date=Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- FW states that professional teams that have played together for a long time will beat a team made of a handful of the top pub players. You state that they could. However, in all likelihood they would need time to get used to one another before they could be a functional team. You say that they could do this in no time. What is this statement based on?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's based on what I know about individual and teamplay skills and their respective weight in teamgames. But as I've already mentioned, this can only be based on speculations on my or Firewater's behalf.
<!--quoteo(post=1676980:date=Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What the hell does this even have to do with supporting this ranking system that you're suggesting?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing.
<!--quoteo(post=1676980:date=Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 27 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It just seems like this is degenerating into a "I'm right you're wrong" kind of argument for ANY point (or segment of a post) presented, rather than tying it back to the main topic at hand. This is what causes topics to become useless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, but as you may have noticed (or not), I have constantly tried to tell everyone to get back on topic.
I know I may sound immature in saying "I didn't start this debacle, so I'm not responsible for it", but that's how I feel; I just answer to any comments made to me.
This might be a bit troublesome at beginner levels, but a noob will never get miraculous wins one after the other and just ride the ranks by winging winning teams.
To make it even more clear, in Myth II, I could have probably won 95% of my games if I played solo. The problem was that I couldn't because my rank weighed to much on the scoring and I could only hope to win 1 point per game, while losing (the maximum amount of) 32 points for a loss. When I played in a team, the weight of my rank was diluted in the teams average rank, but consequently I only won about 60% of my games. I knew I contributed the most for the wins, but that didn't bother me as I would accumulate more wins/points than others on the long run.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay. That might be valid in a 2v2 or 4v4 or maybe even 6v6. In public NS2, we're talking about 15v15 and possibly up to 30v30. With each person in such large teams getting an equal number of points for winning or losing, I am hesitant to put my trust in statistics.
<!--quoteo(post=1676989:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:40 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 27 2008, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676989"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It does, but as I've said before, all the scoring systems on FPS's seem very uneffective in my opinion, especially on team-based games. None of the statistics encourage teamplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can see how a win-based ranking system may be intended to promote teamwork - so as to win. However, I see no incentive for players to want to win in NS2. What will they get out of it? A higher rank? Why would players want/care about a higher rank?
Maybe I'm missing the point here - we are trying to balance skill, right? So what stops a bunch of high ranked players from stacking against much lower ranked players? They have much more to lose (point-wise) IF they lose but: 1. why should they care? 2. what's the chances of them losing? Not very high.
<!--quoteo(post=1676989:date=Apr 27 2008, 05:40 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 27 2008, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676989"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This doesn't vary because of the type of game...players in an RTS can contribute just as much to a win as FPS players. For example, in the Myth series, players could be in charge of just a few or even one single unit (with multiple actions such as in an FPS game).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In NS1, it was common for 2-3 good players to carry 14 mediocre players. And it wasn't even so much about teamwork, but rather raw skill. A single marine could hold a hive against 8 skulks with minimal support from a commander. I'm not sure how this will be in NS2. However, in contrast, it was also common to have 2-3 good players on aliens fail miserably when a single gorge dropped the wrong chamber and screwed the entire team out of a win in the first 2 minutes of the game. Likewise, an entire marine team's FPS contributions can get crippled by a single bad commander. Did something like this ever happen in Myth 2? Just how variable were the levels of contributions and how pivotal were players' roles in winning/losing?
The Myth series supported up to 16 players and most games consisted of full servers with 8v8. The gameplay could have easily supported twice as many players, but multiplayer was limited to 16 players simply because at the time bandwidth connections and computer power would not allow larger activities.
By the way, there's one thing that I've completely forgot to mention. The ranking system combined with a fixed starting and ending point for a session made the myth series feel very clean and organized, even with 16 players around.
This is absolutely not the feeling I get in FPS's in which there are extremely many players (like 60), especially when players just can go in and out of the server as pleases them. Often I get a pretty chaotic impression of any kind of active teamwork when new players arrive in middle of a battle and others quit or simply stay afk.
I'd be overjoyful if I'd see a proper 60-player game in which each participant would play his part from the beginning till the end and would stick to the tactics laid out at the start. Your doubts and observations regarding the ranking set aside, don't you think that would be a pleasant gaming environment?
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With each person in such large teams getting an equal number of points for winning or losing, I am hesitant to put my trust in statistics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand how that could make one feel uneasy, but I'm so enthusiast about this system simply because I've already seen it work. Although I have to agree on one thing: if the number of players is excessively large (like over 32 players), I'm not 100% sure that the ranking would work as well as I've been used to.
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can see how a win-based ranking system may be intended to promote teamwork - so as to win. However, I see no incentive for players to want to win in NS2. What will they get out of it? A higher rank? Why would players want/care about a higher rank?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well take a look at that quote and ask yourself the same question about NS1: why do people bother with any effort to win? The ranking has the exact same purpose as the main objective of the game: bring a win to your team. Any kind of other statistic or leaderboard diverts player from this goal.
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe I'm missing the point here - we are trying to balance skill, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amongst other things, yes.
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what stops a bunch of high ranked players from stacking against much lower ranked players?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In theory, nothing if the match-making is not automatic...this being true though independently of the existence of any ranking system.
In practice, I guess a bunch of skilled player would simply not find it fun to stack against unskilled players and would not even consider it. The whole point of the balancing aspect of the ranking system is to allow players to find challenging experiences.
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They have much more to lose (point-wise) IF they lose but: 1. why should they care?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, as I said above, depends if they want to have fun playing the game or not. And still, it has nothing to do with the ranking system. A bunch of skilled players can already mass on a NS1-server to beat the crap out of other players.
So basically they should care about winning and keeping a rank that corresponds to their skill in order to be able to compete against other players with the same level.
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2. what's the chances of them losing? Not very high.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep.
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In NS1, it was common for 2-3 good players to carry 14 mediocre players. And it wasn't even so much about teamwork, but rather raw skill. A single marine could hold a hive against 8 skulks with minimal support from a commander. I'm not sure how this will be in NS2. However, in contrast, it was also common to have 2-3 good players on aliens fail miserably when a single gorge dropped the wrong chamber and screwed the entire team out of a win in the first 2 minutes of the game. Likewise, an entire marine team's FPS contributions can get crippled by a single bad commander. Did something like this ever happen in Myth 2?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, very similar scenarios occurred in Myth 2. A set of examples:
- The game had tons of different types of units, each with a set of characteristics and possible actions. Some units were obviously more valuable than others, but almost all units had their proper role, each being crucial for the victory. If a player sucked at using some type of unit, it could ruin any effort made by his teammates. Vice versa, if a player was extremely good at using some type of unit, he could wipe out large portions of the enemy army. Units such as this were for example the wizard or the troll, or even the cannon in the WWII mod.
- Each team had a leader who could control all the units and choose the units "to buy" at the beginning of the game. He could completely screw up the game by buying an unbalanced set of units or by simply not buying certain vital units. As he has to hand over the units to other players, some leaders would take too much time doing so and end up spending very valuable time needed to obtain keypoints in the map. Obviously, he could also give too many units to one player in regard to another or not give the specific units one player was good at (much like the commander should give the weapons at which each player is good at in NS). Fortunately, players could, once their units were handed to them, switch those units between themselves.
- Generally the highest ranked players laid out tactics that were followed by all players. If those orders were not followed by everyone, it could jeopardize the entire teamwin (especially on capture the flag or defend base-type games).
<!--quoteo(post=1676993:date=Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 28 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just how variable were the levels of contributions and how pivotal were players' roles in winning/losing?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The levels of contributions could be very variable and as I explained above all players had pivotal roles. In most maps, a team could only afford 1 wizard, 1 dwarf, 1 bomber, 1 barbarian, a few archers, etc. Players would therefore often get only 1 unit to take extra care of, because it would be so important for the team. While an unit could be strong against a certain type of unit, it could be extremely vulnerable to another type of unit.
And players could become very specialized at some types of units...because although it is an RTS-type of game, it allows very minutuous gameplay with fine-tuning the timing of attacks and other special quirks for different type of actions.
With regards to the subject body, one can only say that you're a liar, you contradict your own answers, you cannot hold a coherent argument, are lacking a fundamental knowledge of the mechanics of NS play, and don't fully understand the examples you are allegedly citing.
I believe that replies to this thread have been overly generous with regards to helping you try and understand the fallacies in your statements. I can only assume that English is not your first language, or you are deliberately failing to comprehend the arguments being put to you.
Your words -
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"How are they penalised for teamplay in this ranking system which is supposed to promote teamplay?"
"If his team loses, he would lose points for such actions."
"If you win the match in a higher-ranked game and you were dropping hives during that match, you would be getting more points"
"I don't follow you? What are you getting a giant killer bonus for?"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Me -<b> "Neither Halo nor SupCom actively reward pure support players"</b>
"You claim I have no knowledge of Halo or SupCom"
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"Again, you're talking of something you have don't have enough knowledge about. "
"I didn't claim anything either, I suggested"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Me - "you can't just rank NS on Wins:Losses"
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"Hey, you finally got it!"
"this ranking system is based on W:L"
"How can you be choosy in SupCom when it has an automatic match-making system?"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Pro Tip: For the benefit of those that have not played SupCom, you can <b>choose</b> arranged matches, in order to cook your rank.
Penalising the team for their Commander's error? Basing it all on W:L? People will stack Marines. They won't switch teams, <b>they'll just never play Marines in the first place</b>.
Myth 1 did not REQUIRE 12 evenly skilled players.
Myth 2 did not REQUIRE 12 evenly skilled players.
Myth 3 did not REQUIRE 12 evenly skilled players.
Ranked vs Unranked - Lets take a leaf out of EA's book, specifically Battlefield. I think we can agree that the Battlefield series has a larger share of the FPS market than Myth ever will. What does EA say?
<i>"The one thing these will all have in common, however, is the lack of pressure to meet the high standard of play we will expect on Ranked servers (i.e. don't be a nuisance, don't break EA's Terms and Conditions and strive to be a team player).... Even if you screw up, nobody's likely to care more than a couple of seconds - after all there are no long-term consequences."</i>
That is NOT current NS "casual" play. NS casual play REQUIRES team players, and there certainly are long term consequences if you're consistently goofing off.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"The games would still be relaxing"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Here's an easy process tree -
You pick Marines.
You play very well.
Your Comm screws the pooch.
You lose because of his mistake.
You are personally shafted in points because of him.
That is NOT relaxing. Compare and contrast -
You pick Aliens.
You play very well.
Nobody is dropping a hive!
You drop the hive!
You are personally rewarded in spite of the other players.
Which means noone plays Marines, which means NS doesn't work, which means NS dies. You can't automatch around that, because an automatch relies on people wanting to play on either side.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"the players contributing will have more wins than the ones that aren't. It doesn't take too many sessions for the statistics to even out."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Play Marines, play well, lose because of the Comm. Your contribution counts for nothing. Doesn't encourage people to get in the chair, doesn't encourage people to play Marines. I'd like to see how that balances out over time?
The golden rule of any NS ranking system - YOU DO NOT PUNISH TEAMWORK. Your system FAILS because it unduly punishes good teamplayers.
<b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b>
This neither implies, nor states, that ranking serves no purpose in server balance. It is an IF statement, a fundamental of logical reasoning. IF ranking is not used to balance servers, then why have it? Sarisel raised the same point, in that if rank serves no use, then people will not pursue it.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->
"Counter-strike ... good individual players can match a well prepared teamwork to some extent."
"What the hell are you talking about? Did I ever say anything of that sort?"
"the Myth series ... has some very similar elements to Natural selection"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Myth is categorically NOT a team-based objective-driven FPS that REQUIRES players to assume a dedicated support role. NS sessions are NOT "relatively long" - compare and contrast with the likes of Tribes, Unreal Tournament, Enemy Territory, or Battlefield 2142. Furthermore, you MAY play Myth in teams, but it is NOT a requirement. Conversely, NS Classic may ONLY be played in teams. Finally, NS is primarily a tactical FPS, not an RTS.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"all the scoring systems on FPS's seem very uneffective in my opinion, especially on team-based games. None of the statistics encourage teamplay."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Caveat lector, the poster has not played neither Battlefield nor presumably Quake Wars. Those in the know will be able to say "But Battlefield/Quake Wars rewards healing, reviving, and squadding up!!"
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"That's a pretty strong statement taking into consideration that I've responded to every single statement they've made, while they just arbitrarily pick out the passages they wish to criticize."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Pro Tip: A coherent debate revolves around rebutting key phrases in an opponent's argument.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->
"I'm so enthusiast (sic) about this system simply because I've already seen it work."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
No you haven't. You haven't seen any NS comparable game ranked using this system. Fact.
Your explanation of RTS multiplayer tactics is risible in the extreme. Its not even remotely tangential to a tactical FPS. Furthermore if Myth actually penalised players for their Leader's poor decisions, then it was a pretty poor system for encouraging teamplay. If anything, it encouraged you only to play with competent Leaders (which is more exclusive than inclusive).
Your argument is incoherent, and based on a flawed premise. The criteria you have used to compare Myth and NS is beyond absurd, and would be treated as well intentioned naiveté were it not associated with such an evidently ignorant tone.
Play more NS, play a wider variety of FPS games, learn more about what you're discussing, and above all, learn how to hold a cogent and coherent argument.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->
"Do I need to know how a Ferrari works in order to say that it runs smoothly and better than most cars?"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Yes, yes you do. I take it you've never owned or even drove a Mondial, it'd spoil your Ferrari fantasy in one fell swoop.
In any case, there is not much more I can say without repeating myself. Most of the time you're not hearing me out and it creates a stalemate and sterile discussion. I simply hope others will have gotten a better picture of the system I intended to present.
One last swoop over your observations:
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Flatrick, the take home message is that your post count doesn't confer wisdom, and it is not an indicator of your IQ.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I already explained, I really couldn't care less about my post count, but you just seem to ignore most of what I say.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your "suggestions" are contradictory, and patently ridiculous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you've said that quite a few times already and I think everyone has become pretty aware of where you stand at.
You pretend you want to be concise, yet you lash out on every second sentence and keep stating your now obvious opinions.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can only assume that English is not your first language, or you are deliberately failing to comprehend the arguments being put to you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
English is my fifth language, but I reckon I master it well enough to comprehend those arguments.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your words -
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"How are they penalised for teamplay in this ranking system which is supposed to promote teamplay?"
"If his team loses, he would lose points for such actions."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand these citations you make. Are they supposed to be related to each other in some way? And what point are you trying to make with them?
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"If you win the match in a higher-ranked game and you were dropping hives during that match, you would be getting more points"
"I don't follow you? What are you getting a giant killer bonus for?"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you think I meant you get a bonus explicitly for dropping hives, you got it all wrong. Plus, you're deliberatedly ignoring the parenthesis which followed the first quote "(for the win though, not specifically for dropping hives)."
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"Again, you're talking of something you have don't have enough knowledge about. "
"I didn't claim anything either, I suggested"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, point for you, I did claim that. Thought I had put it in another way. That's one hell of an argument you just pushed through, happy?
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Me - "you can't just rank NS on Wins:Losses"
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"Hey, you finally got it!"
"this ranking system is based on W:L"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and these quotes are supposed to show what exactly?
Pro Tip: For the benefit of those that have not played SupCom, you can <b>choose</b> arranged matches, in order to cook your rank.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the original quote I reacted to: <i>Picking your games for "maximum rank gain" IS an exploit. People will want a high rank, and all the kudos it would imply. Like in Chess and SupCom, people will be very choosy in their matches, so that its all about big gain and little loss. Which, unfortunately, makes for pretty poor global gameplay.</i>
Since picking your games for maximum rank gain essentially means you can pick your adversaries, you were implying that SupCom players were choosy in their matches by choosing their opponents.
However, arranged matches only allows you to choose your partner(s) in a team game. The opponents are not chosen, but are selected by the automatic match-making system.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Myth 1 did not REQUIRE 12 evenly skilled players.
Myth 2 did not REQUIRE 12 evenly skilled players.
Myth 3 did not REQUIRE 12 evenly skilled players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Myth series was essentially a team-based game. Although you could play it solo, it was nigh impossible to control a whole set of units alone on a 1v1 game. So basically it did require teams.
Furthermore, most games consisted of 16 players (evenly skilled if it was ranked).
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ranked vs Unranked - Lets take a leaf out of EA's book, specifically Battlefield. I think we can agree that the Battlefield series has a larger share of the FPS market than Myth ever will. What does EA say?
<i>"The one thing these will all have in common, however, is the lack of pressure to meet the high standard of play we will expect on Ranked servers (i.e. don't be a nuisance, don't break EA's Terms and Conditions and strive to be a team player).... Even if you screw up, nobody's likely to care more than a couple of seconds - after all there are no long-term consequences."</i>
That is NOT current NS "casual" play. NS casual play REQUIRES team players, and there certainly are long term consequences if you're consistently goofing off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what you're saying (and pretend EA is saying as well) is that Battlefield doesn't require teamplayers and that there are no long term consequences if a player is consistently goofing off in Battlefield?
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You pick Aliens.
You play very well.
Nobody is dropping a hive!
You drop the hive!
You are personally rewarded in spite of the other players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, you got me convinced. I hope they make an NS2 where the glory for dropping hives all goes exclusively to you.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"the players contributing will have more wins than the ones that aren't. It doesn't take too many sessions for the statistics to even out."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Play Marines, play well, lose because of the Comm. Your contribution counts for nothing. Doesn't encourage people to get in the chair, doesn't encourage people to play Marines. I'd like to see how that balances out over time?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they are not playing for the sake of rank, they will play Marines and Commander like usual (to have fun).
If they are only playing to improve their rank, they will play Marines and Commander to get easier points. Once you start getting points in one category, it will get increasingly harder to get more points (as I've tried to show you in the multiple examples before). If you have for example over 500 points in the Aliens category, you may only get 1-5 points for a win and risk losing 20-25 points for a loss. And if you have 0-100 points in the other categories, you would win 20-25 points for a win and only risk losing 1-5 points for a loss. So to get the best overall rank the easiest way is to have roughly the same amount of points in each category.
How does my system unduly punish good teamplayers? Please quote me here and explain this part to me the best possible way you can.
If you're referring to the fact that a whole team can be punished because of some mistakes made by a comm, then I'd simply say there was indeed a lack of teamwork; the Commander is a pivotal point in teamwork and if he fails, the teamwork is flawed.
The way I see it is that teamwork has one goal only and no other, that is to say a teamwin. All other statistics (such as K:D, weapons used, etc.) are just individual achievements which have nothing to do with teamwork or a teamwin. The scoring system I suggested is based exclusively on Win:Loss and promotes this way teamwork.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b>
This neither implies, nor states, that ranking serves no purpose in server balance. It is an IF statement, a fundamental of logical reasoning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're being extremely annoying and are deliberatedly playing dumb.
This statement of yours does not -and thank you for pointing it out for the second time already- imply in itself that the ranking serves no purpose in server balance. However, if you make such a statement, it seems more than apparent that YOU are implying that the ranking serves no purpose in server balance. Otherwise your statement has no use of whatsoever.
If you are stupid, you will not understand this. I'm not saying that you are stupid, but can you figure out what I'm implying by that very same statement?
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->IF ranking is not used to balance servers, then why have it? Sarisel raised the same point, in that if rank serves no use, then people will not pursue it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that the part above has been cleared out of the way, I repeat you my question once again: why are you implying that the ranking is not used to balance servers?
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->
"Counter-strike ... good individual players can match a well prepared teamwork to some extent."
"What the hell are you talking about? Did I ever say anything of that sort?"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you trying to make me see some kind of link between these two quotes?
The second one is my reply to this: <i>The five best CS players are not going to be the top five overall best NS players, and vv. NS skills do not directly translate to CS skills.</i>
In the first quote, I'm saying that a mix of good CS players can be a match to a good CS team. How do you come up with that translating to "the five best CS players are going to be the top five overall best NS players, and vv"?
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Myth is categorically NOT a team-based objective-driven FPS that REQUIRES players to assume a dedicated support role.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can you be so downright when you've never even played Myth?
As I said, the game is made for team-playing.
And what makes you say it is not objective-driven? Of course, it had objectives, like any other game for that matter.
Also, as I've said, its fast pace makes it similar to any FPS.
Only part which you are right about is that there are no players to assume a dedicated support role in Myth.
I find them relatively long, but the adjective is irrelevant. What is of any importance is that Myth and NS sessions have similar durations.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"all the scoring systems on FPS's seem very uneffective in my opinion, especially on team-based games. None of the statistics encourage teamplay."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Caveat lector, the poster has not played neither Battlefield nor presumably Quake Wars. Those in the know will be able to say "But Battlefield/Quake Wars rewards healing, reviving, and squadding up!!"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If these games encourage teamplay through their scoring system, I don't see why the NS developers couldn't try to imitate them.
However, Firewater already said that the Battlefield ranking would be useless for balance purposes. If that is the case with Quake Wars as well, then there is no need to even mention the game, because as you said yourself: <i>IF ranking is not used to balance servers, then why have it?</i>
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->
"Do I need to know how a Ferrari works in order to say that it runs smoothly and better than most cars?"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Yes, yes you do. I take it you've never owned or even drove a Mondial, it'd spoil your Ferrari fantasy in one fell swoop.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That just proves how obdurate you are. You are, or atleast should be, perfectly aware that that is not the case. You don't need to know how everything works in this world in order to judge its functionality. I don't need to know how a plane works for me to say that it's faster than a bicycle; I hope you won't try to contradict that as well.
As for your wet dreams with cars, I don't have such fantasies. I just used the Ferrari as a common reference for fast and reliable cars, but that has nothing to do with the kind of cars I drive or want to drive. If I would have cited an Ariel, I doubt you or any other would have even known that I was speaking of a vehicule.
<!--quoteo(post=1677009:date=Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 28 2008, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->"That's a pretty strong statement taking into consideration that I've responded to every single statement they've made, while they just arbitrarily pick out the passages they wish to criticize."<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Pro Tip: A coherent debate revolves around rebutting key phrases in an opponent's argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You most certainly are not a pro on debate, so refrain yourself from giving others tips.
You're simply eluding all the questions or arguments you don't wish or can't respond to. Here's a list of passages you have chosen to ignore:
<i>How come? I mean explain me how this ranking system could be exploited?</i>
<i>When did I say that a player gets points for a loss too?</i>
<i>have you even played the Supreme Commander add-on, Forged Alliance? ... Have YOU ever played a 2v2 and built no offensive units?</i>
<i>Unranked doesn't mean you have to play like a child and ranked doesn't mean you have to play like a robot. I don't understand where you got such a misconcieved conception of this kind of division.</i>
<i>why does that make a "pretty poor global gameplay"?</i>
<i><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> Why are you <strike>saying</strike> implying the ranking serves no purpose in server balance? </i>
<i>have you understood how it works yet?</i>
Instead of rambling on and on again, could should take some time to answer these questions first.
<b><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->Oh and one important thing to add for everyone:</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> I just realized I might have remembered slightly wrong how the Myth scoring system works. To come to think of it, the points awarded for all players in a team win or the points substracted in case of a loss were not exactly the same to all players. The weight of a rank was indeed diluted in the average rank of a team and each player of a team would get or lose points accordingly to the average rank of the team versus the average rank of the opposing team. However, there was -I think- some differencies in the distribution of points within the team depending on the rank each player had.
So say that team 1 wins and all players should get about 15 points. A much lower-ranked player of that team may even get 20 while a much higher-ranked player of that team may only get 10 points. The same goes for the losing team. Players from team 2 would lose about 15 points, but a low-ranked might only lose 10 points, while a high-ranked might lose 20.
Casual players won't want to play many ranked games so it will be near useless for them. Competitive players won't really need it because they all ready know who they want to play with.