The ranking : an ultimate solution?

Sarisel · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ May 4 2008, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677704"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I've never attacked anyone personally on this forum, since it wouldn't achieve anything. If you've taken offense from anything I've said, then that's on you.

One thing I've noticed. Sarisel, Firewater and Necrosis <span style="color:#FF0000">all use this argument</span>: 'your logic is faulty' <span style="color:#FF0000">as if it's the Holy Grail of debate</span>. None of them ever give <span style="color:#FF0000">sufficient</span> evidence to support that, however. It's a form of personal attack that's <span style="color:#FF0000">really quite laughable</span>. You guys really need to break out of the habit, it's poor form.</div>

The problem is that you seem to selectively pick and choose what you read - that's why you can conveniently clump arguments as an attack on your logic. What do you expect when you make a half-arsed attempt to read a post and respond with arguments that aren't valid? What's sufficient for evidence and what's not is completely in the eye of the beholder. In this case, if you think that we're not countering the ideas properly, you certainly aren't justifying your reasoning. In essence, the irony in your post is that you are accusing FW, Necrosis, and myself of personally attacking you - and yet in the process you are personally attacking us in exactly the same described manner. So while you think that you are winning the battle by taking cheap shots at what I can only describe as WALLS AND WALLS OF ARGUMENTS that even I don't read anymore, it's only happening in your own little world.

Sarisel · May 2008

To flatrick: I still contend that there will be very little use for a self-regulating ranking system (ranks don't stop players from playing wherever they want). It won't stop new players from getting dominated by griefers or more experienced players.

Also, I propose a motion to start a new topic with a summary of all the miconceptions about this idea. All I can tell right now is that this system generates rankings on a W:L scale from marine, commander, and alien roles. I thought that I read before that this system will not regulate where players can play, am I still right about that? I'm reluctant to wade through the last 20 posts arguing about nothing.

locallyunscene · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ May 5 2008, 01:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677763"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>To flatrick: I still contend that there will be very little use for a self-regulating ranking system (ranks don't stop players from playing wherever they want). It won't stop new players from getting dominated by griefers or more experienced players.

Also, I propose a motion to start a new topic with a summary of all the miconceptions about this idea. All I can tell right now is that this system generates rankings on a W:L scale from marine, commander, and alien roles. I thought that I read before that this system will not regulate where players can play, am I still right about that? I'm reluctant to wade through the last 20 posts arguing about nothing.</div>
I for one think 12 threads about matchmaking is enough. I don't really see what good a new one will do, we all ready have a novel's worth of discussion on what are essentially, the same opinions over and over. IMO, this topic should be revisited at some point, but right now the discussion is just going around in circles.

flatrick · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ May 5 2008, 07:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677763"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Also, I propose a motion to start a new topic with a summary of all the miconceptions about this idea.</div>

I've edited the the first post I made in this thread. I think I've managed to sum up all aspects of this ranking. Check it out if you are still interested.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ May 5 2008, 07:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677763"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I thought that I read before that this system will not regulate where players can play, am I still right about that?</div>

This simply depends on what type of match-making would be used.
If it is automatic, the players can't choose where to play. The system selects the players of each team and starts the match.
If it is manual, the players can choose where to play. The only problem with this -and I've point it out in the first post- is that you would need to put a (low and high) limit on ranks for each server or to elaborate some kind of mechanism that would allow players to regulate entries and exits themselves.

Necrosis · May 2008

You'll find that it is very time consuming to try to realistically defend your absurd argument.

Ok, from the top:

Following your Commanderâ€™s orders as a group = Teamplay
Being shafted in rank because that one Commander made an error outside your control = Penalty

I should think it is fairly obvious why I keep telling you that you are effectively penalising teamplay. You are essentially saying that if a Comm makes "the wrong call", then he should booted and replaced. I don't know how little of NS you have played, but it can be rather hard to just switch Comms on the fly. You cannot punish an entire team for the actions of one person, when they are POWERLESS to adequately counteract said actions. Aside from that, you also cannot punish Marines for having a bad Comm in general, as it immediately discourages people to command and thus discourages them from playing Marines at all (since SOMEONE has to Comm).

How does this situation differ from RTS games? In an RTS 2v1, you are in a position to cover for your partnerâ€™s mistake. You can take over their base area, their resources, and in SupCom you have further advantages with the remains of structures. You have a fighting chance. As Aliens in NS, you are in a position to cover for the mistakes of others. As Marines in NS....... you are POWERLESS to cover for your Commander's biggest errors.

Considering Myth - REQUIRING and RECOMMENDING are categorically not the same thing nor even close to the same thing. Not in English, at any rate. Requiring is rather absolute. NS requires these things, and by screwing the Marines you are in opposition to the requirements.

W:L - I already answered this. In English. W:L encompasses nothing of any real value. It's unfortunate that I have to repeat myself because you are debating in a language you do not understand, but here is the quote AGAIN:

"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?"

SupCom ranking system was spectacularly exploited about a year ago, for someone who claims to play it I'm surprised you never noticed. Global ranking does not solve your skill related problems. Covering ALL players on ALL servers in ALL combinations means exponentially more variables than 60 regular players on ONE server in any combination. Again, as I have already pointed out to you, your system would rank good/exclusively Alien players as average all round players. This will not make for a better game. Discouraging people from playing Marines will also not make for a better game.

On the topic of Rank, what exactly does EA's problem (of releasing the same six games every year) have to do with how they determine Ranked and Unranked play? Pray tell, because otherwise you just seem rather the idiot. Why? Allow me to show you what have effectively just claimed:

"EA admit that sequelitis is bad, therefore their unrelated server conduct code is bad also"

What an utterly inane statement. I mean, it's monolithic in its density. It's an "irrelevant conclusion", not even remotely logical. By the way, it isnâ€™t that they "lay out the rules" but rather that the majority of FPS players have been playing EA games and are thusly conditioned to follow EAâ€™s concept of what is Ranked and what is Unranked. It is simple majority rule. If the majority of people believe Unranked servers are for nobbing about, then rest assured that Unranked servers WILL be full of people nobbing about. I like EA as much as the next man (I donâ€™t think youâ€™ll get that), but they control what the majority of FPS players will interpret Unranked to mean.

Here is the solution to the three comments regarding BF and ranking - BF ranking â€œworksâ€ because it DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO BALANCE SERVERS. Secondly, BF ranking largely has no purpose. At best you could claim that it unlocks some weapons, at worst it's just an eWang that is about as much use as a Gamerscore. FW's comment is in regards to game balance, but that hasnâ€™t stopped you from once again misrepresenting him. My comment however is in regard to encouraging teamplay. The two can be mutually exclusive, but I'm not surprised you cannot comprehend that situation.

I find it somewhat sad that you are still incapable of understanding that <b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b> Sad, because a 4 year old is capable of following a simple logic statement. In BF, ranking really serves no major purpose, and so there is really not point in having it. People arenâ€™t playing for the rank, theyâ€™re playing for points to get their unlocks. If people want a Gamerscore, buy an Xbox.

I explained in clear terms exactly what the statement meant, plus examples. There is no inference, and you cannot use a nonexistent statement as a valid proof. Attempting to do so only reveals your foolishness.

People stacking for maximum reward at minimum risk makes for really crappy global gameplay. I mean, you're talking about a situation where six sufficiently motivated high-tier players can just demolish any lowbies they can find in order to make their rank look good. Sure, they might only gain a small amount with each win, but it'll be enough in the long term. This is why I told you to look at the ELO system. It doesnâ€™t involve a huge invesment of time, because the games will be over when the three minute Fade hits anywayâ€¦

You do not want people having to always play games for rank, and forcing them to maintain rank or be kicked from their favourite server. It just WILL NOT work. Unranked play would be hell, for the reasons outlined above, so you cannot offer it as a realistic alternative.

I've played more than a few MMORPGs, and can tell you with confidence that there is no hard "restriction" to play. A lowbie player can get into most high tier zones if he has the appropriate guild to back him up. This is part and parcel of "boosting". You see, people pay to play these games, so having someone arbitrarily tell them they CANNOT (not should not, but CANNOT) play is generally a bad idea unless theyâ€™ve been a naughty boy. Second, in regard to MMORTS, you probably want to look at the Allegiance community, which crippled itself by having very restrictive play that only appealed to a old school elite. How did it recover? By being OPEN and encouraging COMMUNITY GROWTH. If you had a fuller grasp of the situation, you might understand better.

Extra cinematics, bonus missions, hidden vehicles, are not related to forcing people to play with a heavily restricted set of people. In Universe at War, I can arrange a good game with who I like, and the same in Grand Theft Auto. This is partly the joy of being the Host and partly that good RTS games are more about tactics thant â€œskillâ€. Neither game tells me that I MUST play a certain way to get a good game, nor do they offer "acting the maggot" as your only alternative to a good game (Its an option in GTA, but one amongst many).

If your "system" screws over players to the extent where they refuse to play Marine, you do NOT compound the issue by giving Marines easier scoring as some sort of counterweight. What you do, is go back to the drawing board and say "You know, perhaps I really shouldn't be using a balanced RTS as a model for ranking an asymmetric FPS". That would be the sensible and logical thing to do.

Now, to the other â€œcommentsâ€. If you could read English, if you took the time to read the posts, I would not have to repeat myself as I would to a small child.

You have said gorges do not deserve the relevant kudos for dropping a hive, despite the issue of permagorges missing out â€œeasy rankingâ€ gained via kills.
You have said that players should not follow their Commander's orders if said orders jeopardise their rank.

These are clearly counterintuitive to an open system that rewards COOPERATIVE team play.

For someone bemoaning the quote limit, itâ€™s odd how you avoid substation replies to the topic at hand, and instead aim for irrelevant conclusions. Is this because you are incapable of understanding the topic? I thought that this was a language issue, but its becoming more clear that it is an intellectual one.

I have never said whether not I have played Myth, yet you have seen fit to assume. Much the same way you have assumed that NS is similar to Myth, and also how you have assumed that making too many sequels has a connection to how servers are operated. I think we can see a pattern emerging.

NS has Marines and Aliens, Snakes & Ladders has Snakes and Ladders.
NS takes the same amount of time to play as Snakes & Ladders.
NS is played on a map. Snakes & Ladders is played on a map.
NS was invented by a human. Snakes & Ladders was invented by a human.

So, by Flatrick logic, they may as well be the same game. Forget the fact that one is a luck-controlled die-based board game and the other is an asymmetric tactical FPS. But hey, don't let logic kill that argument, just claim English is your 5th language, completely ignore anyone's counterpoints, and suddenly you have a cohesive argument. It all makes sense!

Now, as for "gets points for losses", I should think that I made my position clear when I referred you back to my initial comment. What you are highlighting is human error, from having to repeat the same statement so many times.

By the way, I find it unwise to take English debating "lessons" from someone who does not understand the language, and especially unwise when it is someone who can neither operate a quote function nor hold a logical argument.

Harimau · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 06:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>You'll find that it is very time consuming to try to realistically defend your absurd argument.
[...]</div>
No, I'd find that it's very time consuming to try to read your post.

flatrick · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>You'll find that it is very time consuming to try to realistically defend your absurd argument.</div>

No, I'll have to agree with Harimau. Reading and responding to your argumentation takes an unnecessarily long time for several reasons: you do not comprehend what others try to explain to you or choose to ignore them, you continually deviate from the subject, you repeat yourself excessively, and you structure your disputation in an obscure manner.

Fortunately, I've had a comfy week and been able to answer you all while doing my work. From tomorrow on, however, I'll be on the road again and have much less time to take part with this repartee.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Ok, from the top:</div>

I was happily surprised when I saw you started this post with what seemed like a much awaited announcement of a comprehensible arrangement for your argumentation. I even set up my last reply on my second monitor, so I could follow you more easily.
Too bad I got my hopes up at such an early stage, because right after reading past your first argument I realized that you had already given up with this welcome organization and relegated to readers' the laborious task of meandering through your reasoning.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Following your Commanderâ€™s orders as a group = Teamplay
Being shafted in rank because that one Commander made an error outside your control = Penalty

I should think it is fairly obvious why I keep telling you that you are effectively penalising teamplay. You are essentially saying that if a Comm makes "the wrong call", then he should booted and replaced. I don't know how little of NS you have played, but it can be rather hard to just switch Comms on the fly. You cannot punish an entire team for the actions of one person, when they are POWERLESS to adequately counteract said actions. Aside from that, you also cannot punish Marines for having a bad Comm in general, as it immediately discourages people to command and thus discourages them from playing Marines at all (since SOMEONE has to Comm).</div>

<b><span style="color:#FF0000">First of all</span></b>, I'm not ""essentially saying that if a Comm makes "the wrong call", then he should booted and replaced"". In my opinion, the player who accepts to be the Commander in the beginning of the game would need to stay in this position until the end. Other players -which, I remind you, in case of manual match-making voted for this Commander- should not be able to vote him off and take his place (with the exception of a disconnection). In addition, the scoring system would preferably have the Commander stick to his category the entire session (not only for balancing purposes, but for calculating points as well).

<b><span style="color:#FF0000">Second of all</span></b>, Harimau already argumented quite well concerning the punishment and you still have failed to answer him effectively: <i>If your commander is ######, and your team loses because of it, there's no punishment, right? Wrong. You just lost a game. There's your punishment right there. What's the ######ing difference?
Do you want the game to reward losses?
Do you want the game to only punish the 'bad players'? Where's the teamwork in that? You play as a team; then you win as a team or you lose as a team.</i>

I'll try to present this in a maybe simpler way for you to understand:
At first, Harimau explains -and I've already concurred multiple times- that the scoring is not penalizing teamplay, but penalizing a team loss. <i>A team which has great teamplay can still lose and get penalized.</i> A loss will essentially be caused by a lack of teamplay and the Commander plays a key-role in the Marines' teamplay. Therefore, <i>if he screws up, it makes kind of sense that the whole team suffers much more than if a simple marine would make a mistake.</i>
Then, Harimau inquires what you expect from a scoring system. Correct me if I'm wrong (please cite the number of the statement you disagree with), but from what I've understood...
1. ...you do not wish to have a scoring system which relies on how well each team fares.
2. You must then agree that the only remaining elements that can be evaluated are related to individual accomplishments.
3. The scoring could possibly still take into account individual accomplishments that only tend toward helping the team, that I can fathom, but it would remain unaffected by team wins or losses.
4. Players could then gain points despite a team loss and lose points despite a team win.

Can't you see how perverse such a scoring system would be? If teamwork is supposed to be a "cooperative effort by the members of a group or team to achieve a common goal" (<a href="http://www.answers.com/teamwork" target="_blank">Answers.com</a>), in this case the "common goal" would be completely lost from sight.
<b><span style="color:#00FF00">Forget about mutual joy of winning or deception of losing together.</span></b> Keeping track of team wins and losses would actually become totally pointless (as it is the case, at the moment, in practically all public FPS servers).
<b><span style="color:#00FF00">Forget about teamspirit.</span></b> "Cooperative effort" would still exist, but not in the sense of teamwork, rather as a unintentional consequence of all players statpadding through individual accomplishments.
<b><span style="color:#00FF00">Forget about camaraderie.</span></b> As long as you are focusing on your individual accomplishments, you don't need to care about your teammates' unfortunate mistakes (i.e. the Commander's screw-ups) nor try to assist them in order to remediate those slip-ups.

<b><span style="color:#FF0000">Third of all</span></b>, this ranking does not discourage players from playing Commander nor Marines. This issue has been debated over and over again and you have given no fresh and convincing counter-arguments.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>How does this situation differ from RTS games? In an RTS 2v1, you are in a position to cover for your partnerâ€™s mistake. You can take over their base area, their resources, and in SupCom you have further advantages with the remains of structures. You have a fighting chance. As Aliens in NS, you are in a position to cover for the mistakes of others. As Marines in NS....... you are POWERLESS to cover for your Commander's biggest errors.</div>

I don't recall asking you <i>how does this situation differ from RTS games?</i>, but I distinctly recall asking you <i>how can you pretend that a 2v1 situation in an RTS does not ruin the game for you? A fortiori, in a ranked game, how can you claim that the slightest screw-up from your teammate won't affect your game?</i>

You once again fail (first question) or omit (second question) to answer any of my questions.
Concerning the first question, a 2v1 situation in an RTS permits you to recover. Nevertheless, unless the game was already at a stopping point in which the team left with one player already had a clear advantage, the recovery only stalls the almost inevitable outcome. The game will be ruined for you -in the same way it is for the marines in NS trying to cover for their Commander's biggest errors- since you can already predict the resulting loss.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Considering Myth - REQUIRING and RECOMMENDING are categorically not the same thing nor even close to the same thing. Not in English, at any rate. Requiring is rather absolute. NS requires these things, and by screwing the Marines you are in opposition to the requirements.</div>

At first, I was considering explicating the passage you are responding to in a more detailed manner. I finally decided not to because I anticipated your response and wanted to prove how <i>blindly and persistently [you] try to object everything I say</i>.
If you would have given your comment even the faintest second thought, you would have realized how absurd it is.

First of all, you once again fail to include a reference; I was -with a rather explicit purpose at that- speaking of <i>strongly</i> recommending, the word being even bolded.
Second of all, <b>requiring</b> and <b>strongly recommending</b> are relatively close. Yes, even in English.
Third and most important of all, <i>one game requires and the other strongly recommends having teams</i>, yet you seem to contend that <i>you would call them both team-based</i>. By following your unwavering logic, almost all of the so-called team-based games would have to drop this denomination since they do not <b>require</b> teams. Counter-strike does not require teams, hence it is not team-based. Heck, I guess even Battlefield does not require teams!

As Firewater would put it, <i>your argument is pretty much epic fail</i>.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>W:L - I already answered this. In English. W:L encompasses nothing of any real value. It's unfortunate that I have to repeat myself because you are debating in a language you do not understand, but here is the quote AGAIN:

"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?"</div>

First off, yes, you did already answer this and I already answered you back. Here is the quote AGAIN: <i>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.</i>
As you seem to often have memory issues, I'll remind you that you were discombobulated by this ranking system. You perpetually kept misunderstanding how the system actually works, until at one point you miraculously bumbled the words <i>here's the worrying part - you can't just rank NS on Wins:Losses</i>. If you retrace your way back to <i>you finally got it</i>, it becomes clear that this reply was not as equivocal as you seem to feign it to be. For one, I had just previously made multiple remarks on your misconceptions and obviously was referring to your sudden illumination rather than agreeing with what you said. Furthermore, it would make no sense for me agreeing with not ranking NS on Wins:Losses when my post consist of presenting a ranking based on Wins:Losses.

Moreover, when I asked you to <i>quote the passage in which I supposedly "agree that one cannot rank on W:L alone"</i>, I thought you were going to quote some passage other than the one I had already responded to.

In the end, this is just one example out of many of your circular arguments which unduelly burden this thread. This is how the discussion ends up most of the time: you give the argument A. I give the counter-argument B. You give the counter-argument C. I give the counter-argument D. You repeat argument A. I sometimes just repeat counter-argument B and other times try to construe it. And then you once again repeat argument A all the while reprimending me for repetition.
You criticize my debating skills, yet you are incapable of even knowing when to stop a debate. If you come up with no new arguments, you should wrap-up the controversy. It is then up for any observer to judge which argumentation best held ground till the conclusion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>SupCom ranking system was spectacularly exploited about a year ago, for someone who claims to play it I'm surprised you never noticed. Global ranking does not solve your skill related problems. Covering ALL players on ALL servers in ALL combinations means exponentially more variables than 60 regular players on ONE server in any combination. Again, as I have already pointed out to you, your system would rank good/exclusively Alien players as average all round players. This will not make for a better game. Discouraging people from playing Marines will also not make for a better game.</div>

To begin with, I probably did not play Supreme Commander when that exploit occurred. I played it for a couple of months after its release date and have played the extension sporadically since about January.

Also, you do not think global ranking solves skill related problems. Are you referring to myself saying that global ranking <i>would permit easy access to somewhat competitive play and controlled environment, without demanding as much involvement, time and <b>skill</b></i>? If so, can you back up that statement?

Additionally, the number of variables are extremely low in number inasmuch as the global ranking only needs to keep track of each player's points in each category. That's exactly 3 variables per player (except if sub-categories would be included), which surely does not exceed any number of variables already accustomed to in existing global rankings. Hence, this certainly is not a cogent argument against global ranking.

Finally, concerning your last three sentences in this quote, you're repeating yourself as usual and my counter-arguments have already been made regarding them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>On the topic of Rank, what exactly does EA's problem (of releasing the same six games every year) have to do with how they determine Ranked and Unranked play? Pray tell, because otherwise you just seem rather the idiot. Why? Allow me to show you what have effectively just claimed:

"EA admit that sequelitis is bad, therefore their unrelated server conduct code is bad also"

What an utterly inane statement. I mean, it's monolithic in its density. It's an "irrelevant conclusion", not even remotely logical.</div>

I have to develop almost every statement I make for you to comprehend anything. So here it goes again:
1. You quote a leaflet of EA's book, specifically Battlefield, related to server conduct code, which seems to say -according to you- that their servers do not require team players and that there are no long term consequences if players consistently are goofing off.
2.a. You say this server conduct code is not compatible with NS "casual" play. I would add that this is not an adequate code for any game (Battlefield included) and would need to be improved.
2.b. You also say that <i>in BF, ranking really serves no major purpose, and so there is really not point in having it.</i>*
3. However, <i>EA has one of the larger market shares in FPS games</i> and you <i>would think that they know more about how ranked and unranked play</i> than me (or you for that matter).
4. Nevertheless, EA admits sequelitis is bad because there is not enough innovation. So, in opposition to what you said, you and I can <i>argue with the numbers</i>.
5. Battlefield is a sequelitis and needs to be innovated.
6. Innovating Battlefield could involve improving its server conduct code, along with its overall ranking system.

* <i>This could be added as an additional argument after your last post.</i>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>By the way, it isnâ€™t that they "lay out the rules" but rather that the majority of FPS players have been playing EA games and are thusly conditioned to follow EAâ€™s concept of what is Ranked and what is Unranked. It is simple majority rule. If the majority of people believe Unranked servers are for nobbing about, then rest assured that Unranked servers WILL be full of people nobbing about. I like EA as much as the next man (I donâ€™t think youâ€™ll get that), but they control what the majority of FPS players will interpret Unranked to mean.</div>

Taking this back to your original statement (<i>if NS2 hopes to compete with BF, it needs to understand the rules of modern servers</i>), what are you implying NS2 needs to do? The two only possibilities I see you are implying is that NS2 either has no unranked servers or follows EA's concept which fosters people nobbing about in these servers.

By the way, it would be far more convenient if you would straightforward say what you frequently vaguely imply.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Here is the solution to the three comments regarding BF and ranking - BF ranking â€œworksâ€ because it DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO BALANCE SERVERS. Secondly, BF ranking largely has no purpose. At best you could claim that it unlocks some weapons, at worst it's just an eWang that is about as much use as a Gamerscore. FW's comment is in regards to game balance, but that hasnâ€™t stopped you from once again misrepresenting him. My comment however is in regard to encouraging teamplay. The two can be mutually exclusive, but I'm not surprised you cannot comprehend that situation.</div>

First and foremost, Firewater tells me <i>the ranking system in battlefield 2 is just fine and dandy</i> (in response to me saying <i>its ranking system is simply uneffective</i>) and you tell me it <i>"works"</i> (notwithstanding for what reason). Yet you just said <i>BF ranking largely has no purpose</i>.

Besides, you need to re-check the passage in which I supposedly am misreprenting Firewater: <i>If these games encourage teamplay through their scoring system, I don't see why the NS developers couldn't try to imitate them.
However, <b><span style="color:#00FF00">Firewater already said that the Battlefield ranking would be useless for balance purposes</span></b>. 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: IF ranking is not used to balance servers, then why have it?</i>
Based on the incriminated paragraph, how can you keep saying <i>FW's comment is in regards to game balance, but that hasnâ€™t stopped you from once again misrepresenting him</i>?

Ultimately, I was essentially asking if encouraging teamplay serves or not a purpose in ranking? On the second quote hereafter you finally answer me <i>ranking [only encouraging teamplay] really serves no major purpose, and so there is really not point in having it</i>. Then why is Firewater telling me that <i>the ranking system in battlefield 2 is just fine and dandy</i> and you conforting that idea by telling me it <i>"works"</i> and by specifically quoting Firewater's aforementioned phrase without disputing it?

flatrick · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it somewhat sad that you are still incapable of understanding that <b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b> Sad, because a 4 year old is capable of following a simple logic statement.</div>

What I would find sad is if you were a spiteful adult sowing these uncalled-for opinions of me. I, however, hope and think you're merely a youngster exerting your audaciousness. Whichever is the case, there is really no excuse for being so impudent.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>In BF, ranking really serves no major purpose, and so there is really not point in having it. People arenâ€™t playing for the rank, theyâ€™re playing for points to get their unlocks. If people want a Gamerscore, buy an Xbox.</div>

You underline on a previous quote how important <i>simple majority rule</i> is and use it to support your arguments and despite this you spurn players who want a Gamerscore or have an Xbox.
A majority of players have a console (such an Xbox) instead of a PC, which popularizes Gamerscores. So using your unfaltering logic, Battlefield's ranking serves <strike>no</strike> major purpose in its resemblance to Gamescores as it meets the majority's demands. In fact, pursuing your logic, <i>if NS2 hopes to compete with BF, it needs to understand the rules of modern servers</i> and thus offer Gamescores.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I explained in clear terms exactly what the statement meant, plus examples. There is no inference, and you cannot use a nonexistent statement as a valid proof. Attempting to do so only reveals your foolishness.</div>

There is no inference. Check.
The nonexistent statement you are talking about must be the following: <i>you must then think that the ranking I've suggested does serve a purpose in server balance</i>. I can't use it as proof. Check.

This pretty much leaves us with two possibilities and I hope you will enlighten me with which one is the valid one. (Editor's note: what a suspense! Don't hold out the answer for too long!)
If you think the ranking I've suggested does serve a purpose in server balance, why didn't you say so earlier?! Would have saved us with all this trouble discussing any hypothetical imperfections.
If you think the ranking I've suggested does not serve a purpose in server balance, yet the question <i>if ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking</i> does not infer that, then I'm reiterating my observation (already made in page 3): <i>your statement [and the whole paragraph that accompanies it] has no use of whatsoever.</i> As I recall, you're trying to be concise in your observations, so there is no need to be stating the obvious and any other general information you would like to share with the rest of the world. Otherwise, you might as well make any useless statements to encumber this thread even more.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>People stacking for maximum reward at minimum risk makes for really crappy global gameplay. I mean, you're talking about a situation where six sufficiently motivated high-tier players can just demolish any lowbies they can find in order to make their rank look good. Sure, they might only gain a small amount with each win, but it'll be enough in the long term. This is why I told you to look at the ELO system. It doesnâ€™t involve a huge invesment of time, because the games will be over when the three minute Fade hits anywayâ€¦</div>

Circular argument. Nevertheless, I'll draw your attention to the fact that, even if top-tier players somehow would manage to scrap points in the long term (and I remind you, this is highly improbable), it would be so painstakingly slow that the number of points accumulated would be insignificant in 3 regards:
1. The periodical reset of a category to 0 points would assure no one could ever obtain an overly large amount of points in any category.
2. It would be less time-consuming to simply play other players and gain points this way.
3. Because of the periodical reset, the points possibly obtained could never reach an amount that would have a noticeable impact on ranking.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>You do not want people having to always play games for rank, and forcing them to maintain rank or be kicked from their favourite server. It just WILL NOT work. Unranked play would be hell, for the reasons outlined above, so you cannot offer it as a realistic alternative.</div>

The global match-making engenders pretty neutral and impersonal servers. It's not so much as in <b>where</b> you play as opposed to <b>with whom</b> you play that counts. Therefore, <b><i>favourite server</i></b> loses its meaning and can only be substituded with <b>favourite partners</b>. It is then up to your favourite partners to choose whether they accept to play with you -although your rank does not match theirs anymore- or not.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I've played more than a few MMORPGs, and can tell you with confidence that there is no hard "restriction" to play. A lowbie player can get into most high tier zones if he has the appropriate guild to back him up. This is part and parcel of "boosting". You see, people pay to play these games, so having someone arbitrarily tell them they CANNOT (not should not, but CANNOT) play is generally a bad idea unless theyâ€™ve been a naughty boy. Second, in regard to MMORTS, you probably want to look at the Allegiance community, which crippled itself by having very restrictive play that only appealed to a old school elite. How did it recover? By being OPEN and encouraging COMMUNITY GROWTH. If you had a fuller grasp of the situation, you might understand better.</div>

Point taken for the MMORPGs. Concerning the MMORTSs, we have antipodal examples.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Extra cinematics, bonus missions, hidden vehicles, are not related to forcing people to play with a heavily restricted set of people. In Universe at War, I can arrange a good game with who I like, and the same in Grand Theft Auto. This is partly the joy of being the Host and partly that good RTS games are more about tactics thant â€œskillâ€. Neither game tells me that I MUST play a certain way to get a good game, nor do they offer "acting the maggot" as your only alternative to a good game (Its an option in GTA, but one amongst many).</div>

Saying that <i>extra cinematics, bonus missions, hidden vehicles, are not related to forcing people to play with a heavily restricted set of people</i> is a very typical example of how you wickedly strain logic for your arguments.
I'm saying games are forcing people to play all sides to obtain something and you're saying that a game can't force people to play all sides to obtain another thing. And the simple fact that these two obtainable things differ from each other makes you say neither of our statements are related to each other.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>If your "system" screws over players to the extent where they refuse to play Marine, you do NOT compound the issue by giving Marines easier scoring as some sort of counterweight. What you do, is go back to the drawing board and say "You know, perhaps I really shouldn't be using a balanced RTS as a model for ranking an asymmetric FPS". That would be the sensible and logical thing to do.</div>

The only problem you singled out with the Commander having so much influence in teamplay was that it would penalize marines by possibly giving them less points. I'm suggesting giving them more points to counterbalance the difference.
You were worried that the Commander's key-role in teamplay <i>leads to players stacking the other side</i> since <i>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.</i> Equalizing the chances of getting points would obsolesce this problem.

So why are you putting so much weight to, what seems to be, a simple matter of equation and do not wish to <i>compound the issue by giving Marines easier scoring as some sort of counterweight</i>?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>You have said gorges do not deserve the relevant kudos for dropping a hive, despite the issue of permagorges missing out â€œeasy rankingâ€ gained via kills.
You have said that players should not follow their Commander's orders if said orders jeopardise their rank.

These are clearly counterintuitive to an open system that rewards COOPERATIVE team play.</div>

Circular argument, although I stress out that an order that jeopardizes rank means it puts the team in peril and as such is against teamwork.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>For someone bemoaning the quote limit, itâ€™s odd how you avoid substation replies to the topic at hand, and instead aim for irrelevant conclusions. Is this because you are incapable of understanding the topic? I thought that this was a language issue, but its becoming more clear that it is an intellectual one.</div>

Can you specify which substation replies I've avoided?

flatrick · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I have never said whether not I have played Myth, yet you have seen fit to assume. Much the same way you have assumed that NS is similar to Myth, and also how you have assumed that making too many sequels has a connection to how servers are operated. I think we can see a pattern emerging.</div>

Concerning Myth, it seems perfectly well-grounded to assume you have not played that game.
Concerning the similarities between NS and Myth, I am not assuming them, I am simply enumerating facts.
Concerning the connection between sequels and how servers are operated, it seems like a perfectly valid hypothesis.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>NS has Marines and Aliens, Snakes & Ladders has Snakes and Ladders.
NS takes the same amount of time to play as Snakes & Ladders.
NS is played on a map. Snakes & Ladders is played on a map.
NS was invented by a human. Snakes & Ladders was invented by a human.

So, by Flatrick logic, they may as well be the same game. Forget the fact that one is a luck-controlled die-based board game and the other is an asymmetric tactical FPS. But hey, don't let logic kill that argument, just claim English is your 5th language, completely ignore anyone's counterpoints, and suddenly you have a cohesive argument. It all makes sense!</div>

First of all, my English still has nothing to do with comprehending you and claiming a language is your fifth doesn't make it true. Also, I am not ignoring your counterpoints -unlike you- as long as I'm responding to them.

Second of all, when speaking of mispresenting someone, you brandish the grand prize. My logic has nothing to do with your caricaturized version of NS and Myth similarities. The 4 elements you picked are nonessential and in no way comparable to those I listed.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Now, as for "gets points for losses", I should think that I made my position clear when I referred you back to my initial comment. What you are highlighting is human error, from having to repeat the same statement so many times.</div>

First thing, you have no reason -as I've already told you several times- <i>to repeat the same statement</i>. The fact that you repeat the same statement in the course of one post just shows how unorganized you are.

Second thing, you have unceasingly made your position <b>unclear</b> because of ambiguous arguments and overabundant text. You did not make your position any more clear by simply referring to another comment inasmuch as it was not apparent that this was a copy of the erroneous comment to which I was replying to. Saying that <i>I think you'll find my quote was that wins and losses COUNT for points</i> does not even indicate that there was in fact a duplicate.

Third thing, you pretend this was due to <i>human error, from having to repeat the same statement so many times</i> although the erroneous statement was the first of its kind. So the error was prior to any repetition.

Fourth thing, you express no penitence in both this passage and the previous one. On the contrary, last time, you were even being overly arrogant (<i>Do you remember? When you're penalising people for a loss? Or are you going to retract that now?</i>) in spite of you being the one misleading others with a fallacy.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 6 2008, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>By the way, I find it unwise to take English debating "lessons" from someone who does not understand the language, and especially unwise when it is someone who can neither operate a quote function nor hold a logical argument.</div>

For one, debating skills translate almost unchanged from one language to another. Moreover, I need to use a lot of English in my thesis, mostly argumenting. I comprehend the language well enough, as I am even able to read through your gibberish.

Lastly, I can understand that your inaptitude at debating pushes you to defend your argumentation by all other means. It is just deplorable that this results in such a primitive and unpleasant conduct. I hope you will some day learn, grow up, and repent.

Average NS Player · May 2008

tl;"tired of the same sht different thread"

i'm just an average ns player and have played for years. i have NO interest in any ego-inflated ranking system and hopefully the dozens(?) of other forum members who aren't posting in these system rank threads agree with that sentiment.
feel free to continue throwing your piss and vinegar all over the forum in various threads hoping to out yell any and all that oppose you.

Necrosis · May 2008

You're directly/indirectly penalising the Comm for any mistake. Bad idea. Comms get enough abuse when they screw up, they don't need it compounded. Also not a wise idea to discourage people from playing Commander, since its a requirement to play the game.

You're using Answers.com as a reference? Wow. What's next, urbandictionary?

"Counter-strike does not require teams"

Erm..

"Firewater already said that the Battlefield ranking would be useless for balance purposes"

Yes, and I agreed, and I explained how it operated. It works because it isnt used for balance. Simple, easy, English statement.

"claiming a language is your fifth doesn't make it true"

I'm debating with a liar? Doesn't that just invalidate your entire argument? I mean, if you're lying about something as trivial as that, then what is to stop you just flapping your lips in general?

Good luck with selling Grit door-to-door, or whatever the excuse is. My advice is to save up those cents, keep away from the learn-at-home courses, find a good English tutor and a nice hardback book on the fundamentals of logic.

Perhaps even play NS? Have you played before? It's pretty sweet!

Harimau · May 2008

So you're picking at the viability of a certain source in total disregard to the information presented; in fact, ignoring and avoiding the information presented. Or do you, in fact, completely disagree with the following definition of teamwork?: "cooperative effort by the members of a group or team to achieve a common goal"

flatrick · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Average NS Player @ May 7 2008, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677926"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>tl;"tired of the same sht different thread"

i'm just an average ns player and have played for years. i have NO interest in any ego-inflated ranking system and hopefully the dozens(?) of other forum members who aren't posting in these system rank threads agree with that sentiment. feel free to continue throwing your piss and vinegar all over the forum in various threads hoping to out yell any and all that oppose you.</div>

First thing, you seem to have a pretty narrow-minded vision of ranking systems. The system presented here is mainly used to balance servers, but it also allows a better regulation of troublemakers among other things. The comparison of ewangs is just a by-product of any hierarchical order.

Second thing, there's probably a lot more than <i>dozens(?) of other forum members who aren't posting in these system rank threads agree[ing] with that sentiment</i>. I can't find the article I recently read about Youtube comments, but here's what it basically said: for each comment posted on Youtube there are about 10,000 persons who agree with it, although they will not post anything. The same theory applies to forums, feedbacks, etc.
The numbers are certainly lower on this forum, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was over 1,000 forum members giving their assent to your post without explicitly expressing it here. This said, bear in mind that this rule also applies to all those posts in favor of a ranking system, which seem to represent a large majority.

Third thing, I'm not sure whom you're addressing to in your last sentence, but since you're not specifying anyone in particular I can just assume it must be me, the original poster.
As I said in my initial post, this is my first and only attempt to try and influence the outcome of NS2. Moreover, I expressed pretty clearly in the rest of the posts that I have no intention of posting anywhere else in this forum.
Even though I have not participated in any other threads, I don't understand why in any case I would hope <i>to out yell any and all that oppose</i> me when the threads you seem to be pointing at are in favor of ranking systems? I might disagree on how the scoring should work, but all in all -and as I've already said in previous posts- I'm happy with any system that would work well with this game.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 8 2008, 07:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678090"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>You're using Answers.com as a reference? Wow. What's next, urbandictionary?</div>

As Harimau said, it's pretty useless to criticize a source if you do not intend to contradict the information related to it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 8 2008, 07:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678090"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>"Counter-strike does not require teams"

Erm..</div>

Heck of an answer. Due to your logic, Counter-strike <b>almost requires</b> teams or <b>strongly recommends</b> teams, but <b>does not require</b> teams. And, according to you, since the game can perfectly well be played 1v1 it can not be called team-based.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 8 2008, 07:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678090"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>"Firewater already said that the Battlefield ranking would be useless for balance purposes"

Yes, and I agreed, and I explained how it operated. It works because it isnt used for balance. Simple, easy, English statement.</div>

No, you did not simply agree. You told me I was misrepresenting Firewater and you still fail to explain why so.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 8 2008, 07:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678090"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>"claiming a language is your fifth doesn't make it true"

I'm debating with a liar? Doesn't that just invalidate your entire argument? I mean, if you're lying about something as trivial as that, then what is to stop you just flapping your lips in general?</div>

First off, you are not debating with a liar. I said <i>English is my fifth language</i> and I've never pretended the contrary.

Furthermore, for someone who seems to be disturbed by inferences you sure have a shrewd way of interpreting anything I say. You say anyone can just <i>claim English is your 5th language</i> and I respond directly to that by saying <i>claiming a language is your fifth doesn't make it true</i>. Ending up with your interpretation shows how wicked you are once again.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ May 7 2008, 08:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>The nonexistent statement you are talking about must be the following: you must then think that the ranking I've suggested does serve a purpose in server balance. I can't use it as proof. Check.

This pretty much leaves us with two possibilities and I hope you will enlighten me with which one is the valid one. (Editor's note: what a suspense! Don't hold out the answer for too long!)</div>

In conclusion, I think it's pretty lame you've chosen to ignore so many questions presented to you, this one in particular. However, you can choose to keep ignoring it since I'm retracting this passage.
In my haste to answer you, I forgot that the nonexistent statement you are talking about was inferred <i>a contrario</i>. As we are speaking of "proof", which is directly linked to juridical terminology, you have to take into account basic law principles, according to which a statement made <i>a contrario</i> is perfectly valid. Uncheck.

aNytiMe · May 2008

flatrick, your post doesn't address the issue of tl;dr. We're not paid to read posts on forums, so forget everything you've been taught in high school and make your points in two or three sentences.

pSyk0mAn · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ May 15 2008, 05:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678644"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>flatrick, your post doesn't address the issue of tl;dr. We're not paid to read posts on forums, so forget everything you've been taught in high school and make your points in two or three sentences.</div>
Agreed and directed at anybody, who thinks a big, fancy post makes him appear more smart and right.

Maybe you could even structure your posts a little and mark the parts including all the "I'm smarter than you and getting personal between the lines drama", which are the only parts worth reading to be honest, but sometimes hard to find in that big pile of blaa. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />

flatrick · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ May 15 2008, 12:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678644"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>flatrick, your post doesn't address the issue of tl;dr. We're not paid to read posts on forums, so forget everything you've been taught in high school and make your points in two or three sentences.</div>

For one, this post has reached tl;dr proportions mainly because some people enjoy paraphasing themselves and others. You yourself belong to these people insofar as you are bringing up the same observations others have already made (i.e. <i>Pro Tip: A coherent debate revolves around rebutting key phrases in an opponent's argument.</i>) .

Further, my original post contained exactly 6 paragraphs, which summed up -and still does- all the essential things there is to know. In other words, my points were made in a few sentences.
Nevertheless, some people were confused, posed multiple questions and asked for details. I have merely tried to answer everyone as clearly as possible, even if that includes using some basic knowledge taught in high school. You cannot scold me for explaning the system in such detail when others require it in order to fully understand it.
Now, if you think you can do better than me, I formally invite you to pick any of my replies and try to be any more concise without sacrificying the limpidity of my text.

In conclusion, you're addressing yourself to the wrong person. I've done my share to cope with the tl;dr issue, that is to say I have added all the most important elements discussed in this thread in the original post. In spite of that, if you have chosen to read the entire post, you should have realized long ago how some parts of the discussion were evolving and who was to blame for that. I'm not the one deviating from the subject at hand and coming up with excessively long and incoherent arguments against this ranking system. I'm just trying to respond to them.

aNytiMe · May 2008

What it is:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ May 15 2008, 12:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678653"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>For one, this post has reached tl;dr proportions mainly because some people enjoy paraphasing themselves and others. You yourself belong to these people insofar as you are bringing up the same observations others have already made (i.e. <i>Pro Tip: A coherent debate revolves around rebutting key phrases in an opponent's argument.</i>) .

Further, my original post contained exactly 6 paragraphs, which summed up -and still does- all the essential things there is to know. In other words, my points were made in a few sentences.
Nevertheless, some people were confused, posed multiple questions and asked for details. I have merely tried to answer everyone as clearly as possible, even if that includes using some basic knowledge taught in high school. You cannot scold me for explaning the system in such detail when others require it in order to fully understand it.
Now, if you think you can do better than me, I formally invite you to pick any of my replies and try to be any more concise without sacrificying the limpidity of my text.</div>
What it should be:

"Nerd, your posts are also too long. Quit repeating other people. I'm inserting all of this detail into my posts because I would like people to care about the content. This has to happen because the content sucks by itself."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I've done my share to cope with the tl;dr issue</div>
lol

You must forgive my crude language for I have not been matriculated very well. However, as with all internet personalities, I have to be tough on e-individuals. Nevertheless, underneath the layer of tough you will find a soft and amiable person who would love nothing more than to be your friend. I will now share some wonderful literature with you my friend:

<a href="http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit" target="_blank">http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit</a>

Also, please refrain from using unnecessary language and state your points clearly and concisely by avoiding the words nobody uses anymore. (Shakespearian language, don't use that. Nobody talks like that anymore)

locallyunscene · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ May 15 2008, 01:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678665"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>However, as with all internet personalities, I have to be tough on e-individuals.</div>
Or you could, you know, ignore long posts. That makes them go away on their own without acting intellectually superior.

flatrick · May 2008

Wow, you've managed to bring the debate to a whole new level by citing George Orwell's essay and pushed the thread even further off the topic.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ May 15 2008, 07:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678665"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>What it should be:

"Nerd, your posts are also too long. Quit repeating other people. I'm inserting all of this detail into my posts because I would like people to care about the content. This has to happen because the content sucks by itself."</div>

George Orwell: <i>The defence of the English language [...] is not concerned with fake simplicity and the attempt to make written English colloquial.</i>

Firstly, you are proposing a colloquial -that is to say informal (i.e. <i>nerds</i>) and conversational (i.e. <i>quit</i>)- version of my post.

Secondly, you are faking simplicity by losing necessary details along your phraseology.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ May 15 2008, 07:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678665"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>lol

You must forgive my crude language for I have not been matriculated very well. However, as with all internet personalities, I have to be tough on e-individuals. Nevertheless, underneath the layer of tough you will find a soft and amiable person who would love nothing more than to be your friend. I will now share some wonderful literature with you my friend:

<a href="http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit" target="_blank">http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit</a></div>

As it happens, I had already read this particular essay not so long ago. Although I have strong personal opinions on the subject, I will refrain myself from discussing this any further.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ May 15 2008, 07:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678665"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Also, please refrain from using unnecessary language and state your points clearly and concisely by avoiding the words nobody uses anymore. (Shakespearian language, don't use that. Nobody talks like that anymore)</div>

George Orwell: <i>What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around.</i>

If you look up all the words you're not familiar with, you will discover that they all have very precise and subtle meanings. I'm letting the meaning choose the word.

I know Orwell also stated (among other contradicting statements) that <i>[the defence of English language] has nothing to do with archaism, with the salvaging of obsolete words and turns of speech</i>, but I feel genuinely regrettable if my English seems obsolete to you. My choice of words has nothing to do with me being concise though, it may only render my explanations unclear to those unfamiliar with notions like <i>fascism</i>.

Orwell probably had not even dared to think were the English language might be heading at in the twenty-first century and certainly did not want to encourage an evolution toward an idiocracy.

Necrosis · May 2008

If someone has invoked Orwell, than can I dibs DUCKSPEAK? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />

EDIT - Apparently, Java says NO.

Harimau · May 2008

Oh, that's hilarious...

aNytiMe · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ May 15 2008, 06:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678670"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Firstly, you are proposing a colloquial -that is to say informal</div>
I am.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Secondly, you are faking simplicity by losing <u>necessary details</u> along your phraseology.</div>
Uh

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>If you look up all the words you're not familiar with, you will discover that they all have very precise and subtle meanings. I'm letting the meaning choose the word.</div>
You are yet to choose a word I'm not familiar with. Statements like these make you look like a really pompous 4 star general with a doctorate in Excrementology - which you are.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>but I feel genuinely regrettable if my English seems obsolete to you.</div>
The only instance where your English would not seem obsolete to me is only in a research paper - which is what you seem to be writing so I am going to concede all of my arguments on this topic.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>to those unfamiliar with notions like <i>fascism</i>.</div>
gem

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Orwell probably had not even dared to think w<u>h</u>ere the English language might be heading at in the twenty-first century and certainly did not want to encourage an evolution toward an <u>idiocracy</u>. [colloquial]</div>
Orwell actually did dare to think where the English language was headed, which is certainly why he wrote that paper. More advanced concepts like Ebonics and Pompous 4-Star General With a Doctorate in Excrementology speech would certainly give him new inspiration to write hundreds more of those papers you've read.

flatrick · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ May 18 2008, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678853"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>You are yet to choose a word I'm not familiar with. Statements like these make you look like a really pompous 4 star general with a doctorate in Excrementology - which you are.</div>

Now, who is being pompous exactly?

I, at least, did not intend to act in such a manner. I was merely under the impression that you were not acquainted with <i>the words nobody uses anymore.</i> So, are you saying that you don't qualify as the average person? Or are you going to pretend that everyone knows these words but don't bother using them?
Moreover, speaking of pretentiousness, are you snubbing excrementologists? Seems to me that you're so full of it that even they could not handle it.

Sarisel · May 2008

Back in NZ's time, this would have been locked 4 days ago.

Necrosis · May 2008

Sar -

Something to be said for the old ways eh? Man, Nem Zero, now there's some memories.

the_x5 · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick)</div><div class='quotemain'><b><span style="color:#00FF00">Forget about teamspirit.
Forget about camaraderie.</span></b></div>

<span style="color:#CC0000"><u><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%">Warning</span></u></span>:
I <i>will</i> strongly oppose any idea that encourages those two points in Natural-Selection -- not to mention it directly goes against the company vision for UWE.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 19 2008, 12:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678912"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Something to be said for the old ways eh? Man, Nem Zero, now there's some memories.</div>
Nostalgia for the not so great too? Nem0 was a valuable community leader who did a lot for this community, but it wasn't perfect m8. (understand that I'm talking against idealistic nostalgia here and not against Nem0 who is always welcome in this community)

What do you really mean? (Or perhaps that's better asked as what would you like to be different?) Sometimes I've wondered if I should take Zunni's shoes for keeping the I&S healthy, although the last time I tried to help with that I was banned for two days by Mouse because he felt I was moderating one of my threads. (the 5 focuses for NS2 thread if memory serves)

flatrick · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ May 19 2008, 07:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678915"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="color:#CC0000"><u><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%">Warning</span></u></span>:
I <i>will</i> strongly oppose any idea that encourages those two points in Natural-Selection -- not to mention it directly goes against the company vision for UWE.</div>

Extremely glad to hear that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ May 19 2008, 07:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1678915"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>What do you really mean? (Or perhaps that's better asked as what would you like to be different?)</div>

From what I've gathered so far, he and the others want the discussions to be as brief and the vocabulary as simplistic as possible: <i>"Nerd, I say it's misbalanced if the ComMM has so much p0wa!" - "Quit repeating idiot. You can't even speak English so what do you know about NS?!"</i>
One should just convey as few explanations as possible, these being preferably replaced by insults. Of course, if you slug too long on a topic, you're bound to get chastised by everyone. Sticking to a debate by persisting on giving arguments is of course totally out of the question and also ridiculous since you get more kudos by just ignoring others.

At least, I think they're asking for something along that line. Maybe time to modify the forum-rules so as to better suite these amaranthine forum-members. I hope they will bring as much joy and goodhearted support to N2 as they have offered to a newcomer on this forum.

Firewater · May 2008

I am in awe that this is still being discussed.

It has already been stated several times that a ranking system will not work with regards to balance. Especially ones that use W/L ratios.

No amount of rhetoric or excuse making will change that.

flatrick · May 2008

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ May 21 2008, 04:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>It has already been stated several times that a ranking system will not work with regards to balance. Especially ones that use W/L ratios.</div>

This being stated -at least, within this thread and in regard to a W:L ratio- with no valid argument to back it up.

Harimau · May 2008

<b>Brilliant</b> argument, Firewater. Summarising the opposing opinion, why didn't I think of that?

The ranking : an ultimate solution?

Comments