It's been explained at length, unfortunately in a language you don't understand, Flatrick.
Har - postcount ++? Can't you just take it to a PM so noone else has to read it?
x5 - I was thinking more in the sense that most apparent circular arguments, with no possiblity of an end in sight, tended to be locked down pretty fast.
Probably all the faster when one debater confesses to lying through their teeth.
Essentially what you're looking at here is Average Player who wants a concise modern English discussion on the pros and cons vs a competitive player who knows what he's doing in rough agreement with a casual player with far too much gaming experience in general vs a thesaurus that doesn't comprehend English, and his unfortunate ally whose concept of "debate" is "lets try and goad FW to pass the time".
I mean seriously, the thread has locked all over it from at least a page ago <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
Har har, indeed. I've explained this enough times already. How the hell am I supposed to be interested in a post count of a forum in which I intend to participate only punctually and then disappear forever?
The fact that you repeatedly bring the conversation back to this matter rather proves how much importance you, yourself, put into postcounts. And, as you've ironically pointed out, it is very pathetic.
<!--quoteo(post=1679238:date=May 23 2008, 01:06 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 23 2008, 01:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679238"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can't you just take it to a PM so noone else has to read it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why <i>can't you just take it to a PM so noone else has to read it?</i> The silliest thing to do is to give others pieces of advice you don't even follow yourself.
<!--quoteo(post=1679238:date=May 23 2008, 01:06 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 23 2008, 01:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679238"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Probably all the faster when one debater confesses to lying through their teeth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm awed at how blatantly you ignore what I say. You're incommensurably arrogant and probably think that your remarks are extremely witty on top of that.
You've finally exceeded my patience and I've taken the time to prove what I said. Here's my French High School Diploma: <a href="http://imageshack.us" target="_blank"><img src="http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/3783/examsql2.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a> <a href="http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=377&i=examsql2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/3783/examsql2.00f08bb3c0.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a> The 5 languages circled are French, English, German, Finnish and Swedish. As you can see, English has the lowest score (15) in foreign languages.
Now, will you shut the f*ck up and stop repeating yourself all the while whining about this post stretching out to overtaxed lengths.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
That's just terrible.. the reference was to <b>HAR</b>imau, NOT YOU flatrick. Instead of duking it out on the internet, surely real life has more tasteful things to pursue?
Necrosis - you didn't have to read it. Just like no one else has to read this.
Necrosis, stop pretending that his argument doesn't make sense, or that he can't communicate in English. Between flatrick and you, I believe he could <b>communicate</b> better in <b>any</b> language; but that really has little to do with your language skills, or knowledge of languages, of course.
Sarisel - most of that was unnecessary. Just a 'he was talking to <b>Har</b>imau' would have been fine. Thanks, though.
I apologise in advance for not reading through all the comments on this, so perhaps this has been said, but I don't wish to discuss a design in any depth when it already has one <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><b><!--fonto:Book Antiqua--><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua"><!--/fonto-->glaringly obvious and vital flaw.<!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--></b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> (not to mention a couple of less obvious but still vital flaws)
<b><!--fonto:Book Antiqua--><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua"><!--/fonto--><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Flaw #1<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--></b> You reward players based on their team performance; <i>surely this does nothing BUT encourage team stacking, which is already one of the biggest problems NS has.</i>
The disincentive you provide is that a stacked team will get less points for a win and the weaker team will lose less points. This only reduces the reward for stacking, it doesn't entirely eliminate it or nerf it to the point that the total gain is negligible. The main reasons people stack is because they want to play with people they know well and can rely on, and because they want to win. Your system does not stop them from doing either of these things because you leave the door open for manual team arrangements (and you claim that no admins are needed to supervise this process).
<b><!--fonto:Book Antiqua--><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua"><!--/fonto--><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Flaw #2<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--></b> In NS, the co-operative team nature of the game means that just one guy who screws up for any number of conceivable reasons (connection cut, ignorant, afk, phone/not paying attention, risky/selfish play, deliberate griefing) can lose you the game. Why would I want to risk my hard earnt points based on the performance of a newb or idiot? This system cannot function without some sort of segregation to split players into tiers by experience. It doesn't matter that the teams are balanced to begin with, your system still allows any griefer or newb to throw a game (willingly or unwillingly respectively) and piss people off.
<b><!--fonto:Book Antiqua--><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua"><!--/fonto--><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Flaw #3<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--></b> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Each session would have a fixed starting and ending point. Thus, all players would play an entire session together from the beginning till the end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->There is no way to enforce this. If a player drops and he is replaced by a significantly better or worse player, how does your system re-calibrate based on the fact that an average 12th man has played half a game and a crap/uber 12th man has played the 2nd half? This is either unworkable or so unbelievably overcomplex it defaults to being unworkable because of its complexity.
<b><!--fonto:Book Antiqua--><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua"><!--/fonto--><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Flaw #4<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--></b> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Players quitting a server in middle of a session would be punished by substracting their points (like in RTS games).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->How do you distinguish between someone legitimately dropping from the server because of connection problems and someone deliberately forcing their game to close to avoid point penalty. Furthermore, even if we humour your preposition that some method of determining disconnection legitimacy exists, <i>how can you make sure that the penalty for illegitimately dropping is never less than the penalty for losing the game?</i> E.g. The equivalent of F4ing so you don't lose as many points.
<b><!--fonto:Book Antiqua--><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua"><!--/fonto--><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Flaw #5<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--></b> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Servers do not need any admins to regulate troublemakers. Since players who would be prone to act mischievously (i.e. TK'ing) would more often lose than win, they would stay low in ranks. So this kind of disruptive behaviour would only afflict beginner levels. Also, cheaters always get detected eventually, especially in higher levels. This would naturally mean that their accounts would get deleted and as such would have to restart at the beginner levels.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I can't begin to describe how wrong these assumptions are. TKers don't play the game to win, they play the game to piss people off. That is their <i>raison d'etre</i> and no amount of points penalty will change that. Following on from this, you are basically stating that it's OKAY that only the beginner levels (i.e. every fricken newcomer to the game as well as those at the bottom of the pile) should face the brunt of griefing so the pr0 players can have a good time. That is <i>sickeningly</i> elitist and plain old... well let's just say it's a huge oversight instead of throwing out insults. Finally, you say that cheaters would get detected eventually, but you also say no admins are needed. How do you then make the leap of logic to cheaters getting banned if there are no admins to survey demos and chatlogs in order to ban them?
There's even a flaw in your flaw-rebuttal: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The "average" casual FPS player does not want a long time-commitment so much as a time-sink (unlike the "average" casual RTS or RPG player). Nonetheless, I'd like to believe that a Natural Selection player is not that "average" casual FPS player. This hybrid game focuses so much on RTS elements that it requires, in my opinion, much more depth in gameplay (and therefore, in time-commitment) than most of the other FPS games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The NS player may not be the average FPS player, but the NS2 player is bound to be a lot more average than you are taking into consideration. NS2 will be available to buy from Steam, possibly in shops and -even more possibly- as a mainstream console game. Even if you ignore the X360 argument, you still have a lot of ways to get at less hardcore FPS players via Steam (multi-genre publisher) advertising and store sales. Secondly the basic draw of NS to the uninitiated isn't RTS and FPS combined, it's the <i>Aliens vs. Marines</i> thing, which has undeniably mass appeal. You don't have to like FPS games or RTS games to find NS2 interesting, just a love of <i>Aliens</i> or <i>Starship Troopers</i> or even <i>Halo</i> would be enough to make you want to try out NS2. --- <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's never gonna happen. ---
Sorry if I come across as a bit negative, but I think all in all you've presented a system that has a lot of holes in it and that is way too complex for an indy studio on their first major title to be getting bogged down with. It's goals are idealistic to the point of being unrealistic, and you have come at it primarily from the POV of a competitive player, without giving barely any regard to newcomers and rank novices. But by far the worst thing about it is that you are mostly taking your cues from RTS ranking systems which are designed primarily for either 1v1 play or highly organised teamplay, where players have top-down control over their units and the actual combat aspect is mostly automated rock-paper-scissors. NS2 is completely different, so the same sort of ranking system does not easily map onto its gameplay.
[Edit] - It seems some of these points have, thankfully, already been made (in addition to a couple I hadn't thought of, like FW's one about the best players not being the top ranked but still outclassing everyone and effing up the validity of the points attribution). As for the OP's response to that one, you cannot use the fact that the best Starcraft players are at the top of a ranking system to attempt to prove that ranking systems work. Of course they are, they're the only ones still playing the game since it came out <u>10 years ago</u>! In 10 years it makes sense that only a hardcore community will still play the game, and that a hardcore community with 10 years of experience should be predisposed to becoming the best players of the game. However, in the height of a games mainstream popularity, there will be a mix of hardcore and more casual players, which any ranking system must take into account in order to be successful.
<!--quoteo(post=1679106:date=May 21 2008, 03:59 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ May 21 2008, 03:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679106"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This being stated -at least, within this thread and in regard to a W:L ratio- with no valid argument to back it up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I have stated several times that your system will not measure what you intend it to measure, as you clearly have no concept of validity or reliability. Which is odd considering how diligently you defend your point.
<!--quoteo(post=1679324:date=May 24 2008, 03:34 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 24 2008, 03:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679324"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's the general crux of the argument against, Crispy, yeah.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait, you gave these arguments when?
Pssh, don't pretend that that's the argument you've been getting at. That's just poor form.
<!--quoteo(post=1679405:date=May 25 2008, 12:34 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ May 25 2008, 12:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679405"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're just begging for another quote-post.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah how many of those it takes for someone to realize that rhetoric and boring one liners do not make up for logic, and coherence.
<!--quoteo(post=1679468:date=May 25 2008, 10:52 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ May 25 2008, 10:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679468"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is a saying: Never argue with an idiot - they will bring you down to their level and then beat you at it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah that is true In my opinion the great exertion of maladaptation is providing the illusion of a viabe adaptation.
He just has me in his sights because he was clearly embarassed (which surprising because I didn't think he was capable of shame), but you are right Saraph, I am just trying to put the fire out with gasoline.
Wow, resorting to personal attacks now. You really must be backed into a corner.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In my opinion the great exertion of maladaptation is providing the illusion of a viabe adaptation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And honestly, are you really one to believe that using big, obscure words is a sign of intelligence? Please.
<!--quoteo(post=1679268:date=May 23 2008, 06:22 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ May 23 2008, 06:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679268"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's just terrible.. the reference was to <b>HAR</b>imau, NOT YOU flatrick. Instead of duking it out on the internet, surely real life has more tasteful things to pursue?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How am I supposed to know to whom the reference is to when he explicitly addresses himself to me in the very first sentence. Communication problems, as I've said since the beginning.
<!--quoteo(post=1679286:date=May 23 2008, 12:38 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ May 23 2008, 12:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679286"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[Edit] - It seems some of these points have, thankfully, already been made<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly what I was about to say...so there is not point for me to comment on anything. Just one thing: a player who quits a session is not replaced by another player. I somehow thought this was obvious, but in the course of this thread I've learned that some things may appear in a very different shed of light to others.
<!--quoteo(post=1679523:date=May 26 2008, 09:24 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ May 26 2008, 09:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679523"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah that is true In my opinion the great exertion of maladaptation is providing the illusion of a viabe adaptation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1680342:date=Jun 6 2008, 12:12 AM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Jun 6 2008, 12:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680342"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just one thing: a player who quits a session is not replaced by another player. I somehow thought this was obvious, but in the course of this thread I've learned that some things may appear in a very different shed of light to others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->So if, for example, the Aliens lose 3 players your proposal is that no new players can join the game until the round finishes?
As I said before, this suggestion is riddled with flaws.
<!--quoteo(post=1680355:date=Jun 6 2008, 11:33 AM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ Jun 6 2008, 11:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680355"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So if, for example, the Aliens lose 3 players your proposal is that no new players can join the game until the round finishes?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1680355:date=Jun 6 2008, 05:33 AM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ Jun 6 2008, 05:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680355"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So if, for example, the Aliens lose 3 players your proposal is that no new players can join the game until the round finishes?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>flatrick</b> I think your principal has been well argued, but I have to say, this bit alone makes this system completely impractical. I hope you can accept that while in theory this system could work, that it would be awkward in a real world application. It's hard enough to get organized clans to meet for scrims, let alone having every game require competitive rules.
<!--quoteo(post=1680362:date=Jun 6 2008, 03:19 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jun 6 2008, 03:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680362"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I hope you can accept that while in theory this system could work, that it would be awkward in a real world application.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm really surprised actually that this ranking system has brought such controversial responses. The thing is I've seen this very same system work perfectly in a game, so it has nothing to do with theory. And players (both from ranked and unranked) were extremely pleased with it. But it seems that as long as you haven't seen it at work, such an unconventional system for an FPS appears unbecoming to you. If it seems like a competitive rule-set, then so be it, but I think many will seek such an environment (without the trials and tribulations of joining a clan). And those who still prefer being able to join/quit as they want to, could simply join an unranked game, which could by the way display various statistics (such as K:D). On a final note, you will not be able to input any kind of functional and realistic ranking system if it does not involve team success.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1680430:date=Jun 7 2008, 05:57 AM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Jun 7 2008, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm really surprised actually that this ranking system has brought such controversial responses. The thing is I've seen this very same system work perfectly in a game, so it has nothing to do with theory. And players (both from ranked and unranked) were extremely pleased with it. But it seems that as long as you haven't seen it at work, such an unconventional system for an FPS appears unbecoming to you. If it seems like a competitive rule-set, then so be it, but I think many will seek such an environment (without the trials and tribulations of joining a clan). And those who still prefer being able to join/quit as they want to, could simply join an unranked game, which could by the way display various statistics (such as K:D). On a final note, you will not be able to input any kind of functional and realistic ranking system if it does not involve team success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have seen this system work with RTS games, but you only need 2-4 players for those games. Larger teams are possible, but far less common due to someone dropping. Battlenet is what I picture when you have a ranking based on a W-L record determined by strict rules(particularly player dropping). Steam_ids alleviate the problem of smurfing partially, but the basic problem of forcing many people to "meet" reliably is hard.
<!--quoteo(post=1680636:date=Jun 9 2008, 03:30 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jun 9 2008, 03:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680636"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have seen this system work with RTS games, but you only need 2-4 players for those games. Larger teams are possible, but far less common due to someone dropping.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have played many RTS games without having any problems joining large teams. However, these games were popular and had large gaming communities.
<!--quoteo(post=1680636:date=Jun 9 2008, 03:30 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jun 9 2008, 03:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680636"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the basic problem of forcing many people to "meet" reliably is hard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, point taken.
But I'll still say this one last thing: no FPS game so far has implented any worthwile ranking system and most of them can't even be really called "ranking systems". Displaying your K:D for one session/map is not what at least I call a ranking system.
Now, I know the ranking system I've presented veers a bit toward the competitive play (with additionnal requirements, such as <i>forcing many people to "meet"</i>), but it remains the only possible and viable ranking system in my opinion. Nonetheless, nothing prevents the game developers from adding other statistics (such as K:D) to unranked games. They could even inspire themselves of some of the suggestions about ranking that have already been made in this forum (which mainly focuse on individual accomplishments) and implement these features into the unranked games.
This way, everyone could be happy: players, like me, who want a "real" ranked game (where team success is the unique factor) could muster up the necessary requirements (such as waiting for other players and having fixed starting and ending points to a game) and other players, who do not want to be obliged by any superfluous requirements, could play a "false" ranked game (in the sense of today's FPS ranking systems) and still keep some sort of track of their skill/achievements/statistics (whatever you want to call it). With all this said, I will repeat one last time a statement I've made several times already: the ranking system I present is not necessarily the best there is, but it's the only one which I've seen that works and which I'm able to figure out for a team-based FPS game. If someone comes up with a similar idea or something better, I would probably support it. But for the time being, I have seen no such suggestion on this forum.
I personally am a little confused on how to stand on this idea. Skimmed your middle example a bit.
There's not a whole lot I can add except I don't personally believe in ranking systems. I mean, it's hard to put scores to people's abilities. That being said, I'm glad this system is much more robust and takes into account a good variety of factors, and it one of the better thought out ideas I've seen in a while.
My only addition would be perhaps to give players a "Learning" rank until they have enough chances to prove themselves in that area. Puzzle Pirates does this to let people know you're learning, where as the other people with poor scores actually earned those. It also helps mitigate random fluctuations in the early part of their career. Not sure how to weight those, except perhaps to have a set starting value, but in the background be preparing the actual value for when you have enough of a sample of their abilities in that area.
<!--quoteo(post=1680760:date=Jun 10 2008, 10:38 AM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ Jun 10 2008, 10:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680760"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please read the whole thread before coming to a conclusion. It's looking like the blind leading the blind right now... >_><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Care to give a condensed version? It's 8 freakin' pages.
EDIT: OK, 8 freakin' long pgaes with freakin' essays for most of the posts.
Also, I will concede that the system has its flaws, and some very stark ones as pointed out by some. In some respects, it is true that NS is too complex of a game to try and distill rankings into numerical values. However, at least it's not a completely moronic system like K:D.
I will remove my support vote, but for now I won't condone it.
EDIT2: Made it to Crispy's post. Good points. Thread needs less stupid.
I think the system would work as a server addon aimed at semi-competitive communities, but I don't think it should be imposed on all NS players because it simply wouldn't work.
The fact that it has an opt-out scheme is irrelevant since the basic idea behind it is not benefitial to the majority of NS players, it's only helpful for people who want to play games according to very strict server rules (such as when you drop because of connection you cannot rejoin the server).
In the end, awarding a player for winning the match is better than awarding the player for individual actions. It may not be what we want, it may have problems it'll cause with stacking or too competitive of play or whatever, but so far it's proving to be the lesser of the many evils I've seen so far. The only other option is no ranking system, which has many of its own issues shown in NS already.
Try to make this ranking system as complicated as you want, the more complicated the worse it's gonna get and the more problems/exploits/griefers/stackers. I'm for using the ranking system that's been used since the dawn of sports: your team wins, it gets the point of winning, loser gets nothing (in this case, team point goes into player's personal rank).
A simple ratio of games won to games played, with perhaps a very small penalty for games uncompleted seems simple enough. Also, some sort of timer to make sure a player doesn't jump from server to server looking for games with 20 seconds left, just so they can join the winning team. I suggest a minimum of 5-10 minutes on a team to get the benefit of the win.
This'll have all sorts of issues, but if we need a ranking system this one's stable and promotes users to try and get their team to win, which I think is enough to warrant its use. Other ranking systems, especially the ones based purely on individual action, will have more problems since NS is largely team effort based. So, reward a person for helping the team win.
Edit: Oh, and for the heck of it people can have a profile that contains ratios and percentages of things done, like you're K:D and percentage of games where you gorge'd for 50% of the match's length and such, just to appease people's ego, but have no effect on their rank.
Make this a plugin that people can add onto their servers if they want.
Good thought, but should not be a core NS2 feature in my opinion.
For an interesting ranking system, see Dystopia. They rank on frags as well as helping people. So, you can be awarded points for scanning, healing, hacking, etc. Of course, frags are still king since it's an objective push-defend game. They also have global ranking, though, and allow it to help people balance if they so choose. For our Lan parties, we just make sure there's decent balance before we start, i.e. a good distribution of good players. Hard to do that for a pickup pub game, though.
Making a server ranked or unranked would of course be an option.
Edit: I do understand that this ranking system won't be effective in trying to get skill balanced evenly and on proper servers and such, but hear me out. I find this ranking system doesn't do anything to solve REGULAR team based game problems, but it does help with IRREGULAR team based game problems.
Regular being things that help a person win the match, which is a problem in ALL team based games, and irregular being things that help a person grind rank, which is a problem specific to online games with ranking systems.
Problems caused by this ranking system:
1) Team stacking: - A regular problem, something that will ALWAYS be in team based games and is really hard to fix.
2) A noob can lose it for the team and ruin a person's rank. - A regular problem, it will ALWAYS be a problem on pubs that noobs can't carry their own weight. Besides, this ranking system is based on how good you are at getting your team to win, not necessarily how good you are yourself. Teamplay is more important than individual skill in NS, this isn't CS. A ranking system showing off a person's individual skill is a flawed one in the first place for NS because of this. Teamplay is what counts.
3) Rank isn't appropriate with skill: - Again, this isn't a straight FPS so skill is not easily definable. In NS, your ability to kill isn't as useful as the ability to help the team win, which is based on much more than killing. Your individual skill isn't important, your ability to help the team win is.
Problems fixed (or somewhat fixed) by this ranking system:
1) Griefing 2) Stat whoring: - Irregular problems. Can't grind wins, not with the timer I have in my rules. There's no point in dragging a match on to get kills either, as it won't do anything for your rank. Only winning affects your rank. Problem avoided.
3) People refusing to go commander/welder or gorge/lerk cause they wanna fade/whatever: - An irregular problem. The goal is no longer to get kills, but to win. Commanding/welding or gorging/lerking helps win, thus it becomes a priority. This focus on winning encourages teams to find the most effect team setup, which usually means a mix of everything. Problem avoided.
So, I think this very simple version of the W:L ranking system is the best, cause no ranking system is really any good and this one just seems to suck less than the others.
Comments
Har - postcount ++? Can't you just take it to a PM so noone else has to read it?
x5 - I was thinking more in the sense that most apparent circular arguments, with no possiblity of an end in sight, tended to be locked down pretty fast.
Probably all the faster when one debater confesses to lying through their teeth.
Essentially what you're looking at here is Average Player who wants a concise modern English discussion on the pros and cons vs a competitive player who knows what he's doing in rough agreement with a casual player with far too much gaming experience in general vs a thesaurus that doesn't comprehend English, and his unfortunate ally whose concept of "debate" is "lets try and goad FW to pass the time".
I mean seriously, the thread has locked all over it from at least a page ago <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
Har har, indeed. I've explained this enough times already. How the hell am I supposed to be interested in a post count of a forum in which I intend to participate only punctually and then disappear forever?
The fact that you repeatedly bring the conversation back to this matter rather proves how much importance you, yourself, put into postcounts. And, as you've ironically pointed out, it is very pathetic.
<!--quoteo(post=1679238:date=May 23 2008, 01:06 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 23 2008, 01:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679238"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can't you just take it to a PM so noone else has to read it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why <i>can't you just take it to a PM so noone else has to read it?</i> The silliest thing to do is to give others pieces of advice you don't even follow yourself.
<!--quoteo(post=1679238:date=May 23 2008, 01:06 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 23 2008, 01:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679238"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Probably all the faster when one debater confesses to lying through their teeth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm awed at how blatantly you ignore what I say. You're incommensurably arrogant and probably think that your remarks are extremely witty on top of that.
You've finally exceeded my patience and I've taken the time to prove what I said. Here's my French High School Diploma: <a href="http://imageshack.us" target="_blank"><img src="http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/3783/examsql2.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a>
<a href="http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=377&i=examsql2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/3783/examsql2.00f08bb3c0.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a>
The 5 languages circled are French, English, German, Finnish and Swedish. As you can see, English has the lowest score (15) in foreign languages.
Now, will you shut the f*ck up and stop repeating yourself all the while whining about this post stretching out to overtaxed lengths.
Necrosis, stop pretending that his argument doesn't make sense, or that he can't communicate in English. Between flatrick and you, I believe he could <b>communicate</b> better in <b>any</b> language; but that really has little to do with your language skills, or knowledge of languages, of course.
Sarisel - most of that was unnecessary. Just a 'he was talking to <b>Har</b>imau' would have been fine. Thanks, though.
<b><!--fonto:Book Antiqua--><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua"><!--/fonto--><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Flaw #1<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--></b>
You reward players based on their team performance; <i>surely this does nothing BUT encourage team stacking, which is already one of the biggest problems NS has.</i>
The disincentive you provide is that a stacked team will get less points for a win and the weaker team will lose less points. This only reduces the reward for stacking, it doesn't entirely eliminate it or nerf it to the point that the total gain is negligible. The main reasons people stack is because they want to play with people they know well and can rely on, and because they want to win. Your system does not stop them from doing either of these things because you leave the door open for manual team arrangements (and you claim that no admins are needed to supervise this process).
<b><!--fonto:Book Antiqua--><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua"><!--/fonto--><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Flaw #2<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--></b>
In NS, the co-operative team nature of the game means that just one guy who screws up for any number of conceivable reasons (connection cut, ignorant, afk, phone/not paying attention, risky/selfish play, deliberate griefing) can lose you the game. Why would I want to risk my hard earnt points based on the performance of a newb or idiot? This system cannot function without some sort of segregation to split players into tiers by experience. It doesn't matter that the teams are balanced to begin with, your system still allows any griefer or newb to throw a game (willingly or unwillingly respectively) and piss people off.
<b><!--fonto:Book Antiqua--><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua"><!--/fonto--><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Flaw #3<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--></b>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Each session would have a fixed starting and ending point. Thus, all players would play an entire session together from the beginning till the end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->There is no way to enforce this. If a player drops and he is replaced by a significantly better or worse player, how does your system re-calibrate based on the fact that an average 12th man has played half a game and a crap/uber 12th man has played the 2nd half? This is either unworkable or so unbelievably overcomplex it defaults to being unworkable because of its complexity.
<b><!--fonto:Book Antiqua--><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua"><!--/fonto--><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Flaw #4<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--></b>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Players quitting a server in middle of a session would be punished by substracting their points (like in RTS games).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->How do you distinguish between someone legitimately dropping from the server because of connection problems and someone deliberately forcing their game to close to avoid point penalty. Furthermore, even if we humour your preposition that some method of determining disconnection legitimacy exists, <i>how can you make sure that the penalty for illegitimately dropping is never less than the penalty for losing the game?</i> E.g. The equivalent of F4ing so you don't lose as many points.
<b><!--fonto:Book Antiqua--><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua"><!--/fonto--><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Flaw #5<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--></b>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Servers do not need any admins to regulate troublemakers. Since players who would be prone to act mischievously (i.e. TK'ing) would more often lose than win, they would stay low in ranks. So this kind of disruptive behaviour would only afflict beginner levels. Also, cheaters always get detected eventually, especially in higher levels. This would naturally mean that their accounts would get deleted and as such would have to restart at the beginner levels.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I can't begin to describe how wrong these assumptions are. TKers don't play the game to win, they play the game to piss people off. That is their <i>raison d'etre</i> and no amount of points penalty will change that. Following on from this, you are basically stating that it's OKAY that only the beginner levels (i.e. every fricken newcomer to the game as well as those at the bottom of the pile) should face the brunt of griefing so the pr0 players can have a good time. That is <i>sickeningly</i> elitist and plain old... well let's just say it's a huge oversight instead of throwing out insults. Finally, you say that cheaters would get detected eventually, but you also say no admins are needed. How do you then make the leap of logic to cheaters getting banned if there are no admins to survey demos and chatlogs in order to ban them?
There's even a flaw in your flaw-rebuttal:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The "average" casual FPS player does not want a long time-commitment so much as a time-sink (unlike the "average" casual RTS or RPG player). Nonetheless, I'd like to believe that a Natural Selection player is not that "average" casual FPS player. This hybrid game focuses so much on RTS elements that it requires, in my opinion, much more depth in gameplay (and therefore, in time-commitment) than most of the other FPS games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The NS player may not be the average FPS player, but the NS2 player is bound to be a lot more average than you are taking into consideration. NS2 will be available to buy from Steam, possibly in shops and -even more possibly- as a mainstream console game. Even if you ignore the X360 argument, you still have a lot of ways to get at less hardcore FPS players via Steam (multi-genre publisher) advertising and store sales. Secondly the basic draw of NS to the uninitiated isn't RTS and FPS combined, it's the <i>Aliens vs. Marines</i> thing, which has undeniably mass appeal. You don't have to like FPS games or RTS games to find NS2 interesting, just a love of <i>Aliens</i> or <i>Starship Troopers</i> or even <i>Halo</i> would be enough to make you want to try out NS2.
---
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's never gonna happen.
---
Sorry if I come across as a bit negative, but I think all in all you've presented a system that has a lot of holes in it and that is way too complex for an indy studio on their first major title to be getting bogged down with. It's goals are idealistic to the point of being unrealistic, and you have come at it primarily from the POV of a competitive player, without giving barely any regard to newcomers and rank novices. But by far the worst thing about it is that you are mostly taking your cues from RTS ranking systems which are designed primarily for either 1v1 play or highly organised teamplay, where players have top-down control over their units and the actual combat aspect is mostly automated rock-paper-scissors. NS2 is completely different, so the same sort of ranking system does not easily map onto its gameplay.
[Edit] - It seems some of these points have, thankfully, already been made (in addition to a couple I hadn't thought of, like FW's one about the best players not being the top ranked but still outclassing everyone and effing up the validity of the points attribution). As for the OP's response to that one, you cannot use the fact that the best Starcraft players are at the top of a ranking system to attempt to prove that ranking systems work. Of course they are, they're the only ones still playing the game since it came out <u>10 years ago</u>! In 10 years it makes sense that only a hardcore community will still play the game, and that a hardcore community with 10 years of experience should be predisposed to becoming the best players of the game. However, in the height of a games mainstream popularity, there will be a mix of hardcore and more casual players, which any ranking system must take into account in order to be successful.
Actually I have stated several times that your system will not measure what you intend it to measure, as you clearly have no concept of validity or reliability. Which is odd considering how diligently you defend your point.
Wait, you gave these arguments when?
Pssh, don't pretend that that's the argument you've been getting at. That's just poor form.
Yeah how many of those it takes for someone to realize that rhetoric and boring one liners do not make up for logic, and coherence.
Yeah that is true In my opinion the great exertion of maladaptation is providing the illusion of a viabe adaptation.
He just has me in his sights because he was clearly embarassed (which surprising because I didn't think he was capable of shame), but you are right Saraph, I am just trying to put the fire out with gasoline.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In my opinion the great exertion of maladaptation is providing the illusion of a viabe adaptation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And honestly, are you really one to believe that using big, obscure words is a sign of intelligence? Please.
How am I supposed to know to whom the reference is to when he explicitly addresses himself to me in the very first sentence. Communication problems, as I've said since the beginning.
<!--quoteo(post=1679286:date=May 23 2008, 12:38 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ May 23 2008, 12:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679286"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[Edit] - It seems some of these points have, thankfully, already been made<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly what I was about to say...so there is not point for me to comment on anything. Just one thing: a player who quits a session is not replaced by another player. I somehow thought this was obvious, but in the course of this thread I've learned that some things may appear in a very different shed of light to others.
<!--quoteo(post=1679523:date=May 26 2008, 09:24 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ May 26 2008, 09:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1679523"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah that is true In my opinion the great exertion of maladaptation is providing the illusion of a viabe adaptation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha, completely agree with Harimau.
As I said before, this suggestion is riddled with flaws.
Exactly.
<b>flatrick</b> I think your principal has been well argued, but I have to say, this bit alone makes this system completely impractical. I hope you can accept that while in theory this system could work, that it would be awkward in a real world application. It's hard enough to get organized clans to meet for scrims, let alone having every game require competitive rules.
I'm really surprised actually that this ranking system has brought such controversial responses. The thing is I've seen this very same system work perfectly in a game, so it has nothing to do with theory. And players (both from ranked and unranked) were extremely pleased with it. But it seems that as long as you haven't seen it at work, such an unconventional system for an FPS appears unbecoming to you.
If it seems like a competitive rule-set, then so be it, but I think many will seek such an environment (without the trials and tribulations of joining a clan). And those who still prefer being able to join/quit as they want to, could simply join an unranked game, which could by the way display various statistics (such as K:D). On a final note, you will not be able to input any kind of functional and realistic ranking system if it does not involve team success.
If it seems like a competitive rule-set, then so be it, but I think many will seek such an environment (without the trials and tribulations of joining a clan). And those who still prefer being able to join/quit as they want to, could simply join an unranked game, which could by the way display various statistics (such as K:D). On a final note, you will not be able to input any kind of functional and realistic ranking system if it does not involve team success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have seen this system work with RTS games, but you only need 2-4 players for those games. Larger teams are possible, but far less common due to someone dropping. Battlenet is what I picture when you have a ranking based on a W-L record determined by strict rules(particularly player dropping). Steam_ids alleviate the problem of smurfing partially, but the basic problem of forcing many people to "meet" reliably is hard.
I have played many RTS games without having any problems joining large teams. However, these games were popular and had large gaming communities.
<!--quoteo(post=1680636:date=Jun 9 2008, 03:30 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jun 9 2008, 03:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680636"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the basic problem of forcing many people to "meet" reliably is hard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, point taken.
But I'll still say this one last thing: no FPS game so far has implented any worthwile ranking system and most of them can't even be really called "ranking systems". Displaying your K:D for one session/map is not what at least I call a ranking system.
Now, I know the ranking system I've presented veers a bit toward the competitive play (with additionnal requirements, such as <i>forcing many people to "meet"</i>), but it remains the only possible and viable ranking system in my opinion. Nonetheless, nothing prevents the game developers from adding other statistics (such as K:D) to unranked games. They could even inspire themselves of some of the suggestions about ranking that have already been made in this forum (which mainly focuse on individual accomplishments) and implement these features into the unranked games.
This way, everyone could be happy: players, like me, who want a "real" ranked game (where team success is the unique factor) could muster up the necessary requirements (such as waiting for other players and having fixed starting and ending points to a game) and other players, who do not want to be obliged by any superfluous requirements, could play a "false" ranked game (in the sense of today's FPS ranking systems) and still keep some sort of track of their skill/achievements/statistics (whatever you want to call it).
With all this said, I will repeat one last time a statement I've made several times already: the ranking system I present is not necessarily the best there is, but it's the only one which I've seen that works and which I'm able to figure out for a team-based FPS game. If someone comes up with a similar idea or something better, I would probably support it. But for the time being, I have seen no such suggestion on this forum.
There's not a whole lot I can add except I don't personally believe in ranking systems. I mean, it's hard to put scores to people's abilities. That being said, I'm glad this system is much more robust and takes into account a good variety of factors, and it one of the better thought out ideas I've seen in a while.
My only addition would be perhaps to give players a "Learning" rank until they have enough chances to prove themselves in that area. Puzzle Pirates does this to let people know you're learning, where as the other people with poor scores actually earned those. It also helps mitigate random fluctuations in the early part of their career. Not sure how to weight those, except perhaps to have a set starting value, but in the background be preparing the actual value for when you have enough of a sample of their abilities in that area.
EDIT: Yes vote removed.
Care to give a condensed version? It's 8 freakin' pages.
EDIT: OK, 8 freakin' long pgaes with freakin' essays for most of the posts.
Also, I will concede that the system has its flaws, and some very stark ones as pointed out by some. In some respects, it is true that NS is too complex of a game to try and distill rankings into numerical values. However, at least it's not a completely moronic system like K:D.
I will remove my support vote, but for now I won't condone it.
EDIT2: Made it to Crispy's post. Good points. Thread needs less stupid.
Vote is a NO now.
The fact that it has an opt-out scheme is irrelevant since the basic idea behind it is not benefitial to the majority of NS players, it's only helpful for people who want to play games according to very strict server rules (such as when you drop because of connection you cannot rejoin the server).
That doesn't seem so large to me.
Semi-competitive describes it well.
But if it were just for those, then yeah, not sure it addresses the issue or not. *shrug*.
Try to make this ranking system as complicated as you want, the more complicated the worse it's gonna get and the more problems/exploits/griefers/stackers. I'm for using the ranking system that's been used since the dawn of sports: your team wins, it gets the point of winning, loser gets nothing (in this case, team point goes into player's personal rank).
A simple ratio of games won to games played, with perhaps a very small penalty for games uncompleted seems simple enough. Also, some sort of timer to make sure a player doesn't jump from server to server looking for games with 20 seconds left, just so they can join the winning team. I suggest a minimum of 5-10 minutes on a team to get the benefit of the win.
This'll have all sorts of issues, but if we need a ranking system this one's stable and promotes users to try and get their team to win, which I think is enough to warrant its use. Other ranking systems, especially the ones based purely on individual action, will have more problems since NS is largely team effort based. So, reward a person for helping the team win.
Edit: Oh, and for the heck of it people can have a profile that contains ratios and percentages of things done, like you're K:D and percentage of games where you gorge'd for 50% of the match's length and such, just to appease people's ego, but have no effect on their rank.
Good thought, but should not be a core NS2 feature in my opinion.
For an interesting ranking system, see Dystopia. They rank on frags as well as helping people. So, you can be awarded points for scanning, healing, hacking, etc. Of course, frags are still king since it's an objective push-defend game. They also have global ranking, though, and allow it to help people balance if they so choose. For our Lan parties, we just make sure there's decent balance before we start, i.e. a good distribution of good players. Hard to do that for a pickup pub game, though.
Edit: I do understand that this ranking system won't be effective in trying to get skill balanced evenly and on proper servers and such, but hear me out. I find this ranking system doesn't do anything to solve REGULAR team based game problems, but it does help with IRREGULAR team based game problems.
Regular being things that help a person win the match, which is a problem in ALL team based games, and irregular being things that help a person grind rank, which is a problem specific to online games with ranking systems.
Problems caused by this ranking system:
1) Team stacking:
- A regular problem, something that will ALWAYS be in team based games and is really hard to fix.
2) A noob can lose it for the team and ruin a person's rank.
- A regular problem, it will ALWAYS be a problem on pubs that noobs can't carry their own weight. Besides, this ranking system is based on how good you are at getting your team to win, not necessarily how good you are yourself. Teamplay is more important than individual skill in NS, this isn't CS. A ranking system showing off a person's individual skill is a flawed one in the first place for NS because of this. Teamplay is what counts.
3) Rank isn't appropriate with skill:
- Again, this isn't a straight FPS so skill is not easily definable. In NS, your ability to kill isn't as useful as the ability to help the team win, which is based on much more than killing. Your individual skill isn't important, your ability to help the team win is.
Problems fixed (or somewhat fixed) by this ranking system:
1) Griefing 2) Stat whoring:
- Irregular problems. Can't grind wins, not with the timer I have in my rules. There's no point in dragging a match on to get kills either, as it won't do anything for your rank. Only winning affects your rank. Problem avoided.
3) People refusing to go commander/welder or gorge/lerk cause they wanna fade/whatever:
- An irregular problem. The goal is no longer to get kills, but to win. Commanding/welding or gorging/lerking helps win, thus it becomes a priority. This focus on winning encourages teams to find the most effect team setup, which usually means a mix of everything. Problem avoided.
So, I think this very simple version of the W:L ranking system is the best, cause no ranking system is really any good and this one just seems to suck less than the others.