Rankings, Character Levels, Stats, Unlockables
Sarisel
.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::. Join Date: 2003-07-30 Member: 18557Members, Constellation
.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::. Join Date: 2003-07-30 Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">caught my eye in the NS2 Survey</div><!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Note: I have refined this initial post slightly and I honestly think that the concepts discussed would benefit the game greatly if implemented. However, many of them are presently scattered over several pages. I will try to summarize this topic when I have some significant free time.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
I saw this question in the survey:
<!--coloro:#FF9900--><span style="color:#FF9900"><!--/coloro-->30. Are you interested in character "levels", stats or unlockables (check all that apply)?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Something that has always bothered me about NS is that pro, average, and newbie skill levels are so far apart. This causes problems when pro players mingle with newbie players on servers. This also causes problems when pro players stack teams in pubs. In general, public play that takes place with a large skill separation in general makes people leave (kills servers) and creates games that aren't as fun overall, only to the pro players. When there's a decent balance of skill, the games seem okay and the players enjoy them more.
There have been suggestions to nerf individual skill further, as has been the tradition along the path from 1.04 up to now. There have been many suggestions to decrease the influence of players on games. Personally, I believe that achieving such a level of play takes time and is very rewarding. It takes a lot of effort to get there, it requires mental sharpness and focus that takes years of playing to develop. Eventually, it leads to a competitive level of play that is radically different from what the average pubber is used to. Take a look at some competitive match demos and see for yourself if you haven't already.
Instead of nerfing individual skill, I propose a kind of segregation that will promote players to play at their level or slightly above. This can be achieved via a ranking system applied to player accounts. Character levels, stats, and unlockables can also be integrated into such a system to promote the general idea of fair play and fun while still allowing a great deal of advancement to individual skill. This idea is similar to what is being used in GunBound ("shooting game of the next generation").
Then, it follows that server operators can select what level of skill they want to allow on their servers. They can allow all players to participate or a particular range of players.
<b>The general idea goes as follows:</b>
1. New player, clean account: Minimum rank is assigned, player can join servers populated by other minimum rank players. Stats from the new player are collected. How many games in total have been played? How many rounds has he been on the winning team? What is his kill:death ratio like? How many points has he collected per game? Etc. (there can be more detailed, but not necessarily complicated, algorithms used to determine the rank level)
2. At a certain level of stats, the next level of servers is unlocked to that player and he gains an icon or a character note to reward him for his achievement. He can now join the next level of servers and take part in games where the players are more experienced, more tough to kill. Again, stats are collected.
3. At a certain level of stats, the higher level servers are unlocked to that player. Same idea as in 2., but now the players play even better at this level.
This goes on and on until all the various rank controlled servers have been unlocked. In addition, once a particular rank is achieved, the lowest levels of servers are locked to the player (this occurs when server ops choose to only allow newer players to play on their servers). A range of levels will still be available to the player, but the newbie servers are protected.
Now, this idea is pretty raw right now and can use a lot of detail and refinements. However, it has the following benefits, off the top of my head:
<b>Benefits</b>
a) The newest players can develop an interest in the game with other new players and not get disappointed due to a huge skill difference where one player can keep killing them over and over. When they are ready, they can challenge themselves in higher skilled environments.
b) Better players have an incentive to play against players of their skill levels. They will get character notes, rankings (not necessarily numerical, look at GunBound's ranking systems, which are ranges), stats, and unlockables (perhaps some personalized changes to skins and models that don't upset the balance of the game amongst other perks that can be invented) . If competitive play is promoted, there are many other possibilities for rewards (tournaments, prizes, lots of promotion for the game, publicity, popularity).
c) Choice. In this case, splitting up the community is actually good since there is more benefit to the players involved. Players can choose to keep playing at a particular level until they are ready to move on to a more challenging level of play. The exception is if the statistics clearly show that the player is destroying the balance of games, such as a new account for a professional player, which can easily be identified by statistical analysis.
d) Customization. This idea doesn't have to be implemented with a whole bunch of levels which will completely separate the gaming community. It can start off small and be adjusted as necessary depending on player and server volumes. At first, there may be 3 levels. It could be expanded to 5 levels. Servers can allow certain ranges of skill. For example, a server can allow all ranges of skill, ranges lower than a particular skill point, all ranges higher, or in-between as desired.
e) There will still be plenty of room for improvement for every player. The game won't have one skill plateau, but will have several instead. There is also an incentive to improve, to get better rankings, character levels, and more depending on how successful the game is.
f) Statistics can be gathered from games played at certain ranges of skill, which better represents the state of balance in the game. This way, the developers can get a better idea of what is broken, what is not, and what needs adjustment.
Like I said, there is a lot more detail that can be worked into this idea and it can be refined to make it more practical and more useful.
I saw this question in the survey:
<!--coloro:#FF9900--><span style="color:#FF9900"><!--/coloro-->30. Are you interested in character "levels", stats or unlockables (check all that apply)?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Something that has always bothered me about NS is that pro, average, and newbie skill levels are so far apart. This causes problems when pro players mingle with newbie players on servers. This also causes problems when pro players stack teams in pubs. In general, public play that takes place with a large skill separation in general makes people leave (kills servers) and creates games that aren't as fun overall, only to the pro players. When there's a decent balance of skill, the games seem okay and the players enjoy them more.
There have been suggestions to nerf individual skill further, as has been the tradition along the path from 1.04 up to now. There have been many suggestions to decrease the influence of players on games. Personally, I believe that achieving such a level of play takes time and is very rewarding. It takes a lot of effort to get there, it requires mental sharpness and focus that takes years of playing to develop. Eventually, it leads to a competitive level of play that is radically different from what the average pubber is used to. Take a look at some competitive match demos and see for yourself if you haven't already.
Instead of nerfing individual skill, I propose a kind of segregation that will promote players to play at their level or slightly above. This can be achieved via a ranking system applied to player accounts. Character levels, stats, and unlockables can also be integrated into such a system to promote the general idea of fair play and fun while still allowing a great deal of advancement to individual skill. This idea is similar to what is being used in GunBound ("shooting game of the next generation").
Then, it follows that server operators can select what level of skill they want to allow on their servers. They can allow all players to participate or a particular range of players.
<b>The general idea goes as follows:</b>
1. New player, clean account: Minimum rank is assigned, player can join servers populated by other minimum rank players. Stats from the new player are collected. How many games in total have been played? How many rounds has he been on the winning team? What is his kill:death ratio like? How many points has he collected per game? Etc. (there can be more detailed, but not necessarily complicated, algorithms used to determine the rank level)
2. At a certain level of stats, the next level of servers is unlocked to that player and he gains an icon or a character note to reward him for his achievement. He can now join the next level of servers and take part in games where the players are more experienced, more tough to kill. Again, stats are collected.
3. At a certain level of stats, the higher level servers are unlocked to that player. Same idea as in 2., but now the players play even better at this level.
This goes on and on until all the various rank controlled servers have been unlocked. In addition, once a particular rank is achieved, the lowest levels of servers are locked to the player (this occurs when server ops choose to only allow newer players to play on their servers). A range of levels will still be available to the player, but the newbie servers are protected.
Now, this idea is pretty raw right now and can use a lot of detail and refinements. However, it has the following benefits, off the top of my head:
<b>Benefits</b>
a) The newest players can develop an interest in the game with other new players and not get disappointed due to a huge skill difference where one player can keep killing them over and over. When they are ready, they can challenge themselves in higher skilled environments.
b) Better players have an incentive to play against players of their skill levels. They will get character notes, rankings (not necessarily numerical, look at GunBound's ranking systems, which are ranges), stats, and unlockables (perhaps some personalized changes to skins and models that don't upset the balance of the game amongst other perks that can be invented) . If competitive play is promoted, there are many other possibilities for rewards (tournaments, prizes, lots of promotion for the game, publicity, popularity).
c) Choice. In this case, splitting up the community is actually good since there is more benefit to the players involved. Players can choose to keep playing at a particular level until they are ready to move on to a more challenging level of play. The exception is if the statistics clearly show that the player is destroying the balance of games, such as a new account for a professional player, which can easily be identified by statistical analysis.
d) Customization. This idea doesn't have to be implemented with a whole bunch of levels which will completely separate the gaming community. It can start off small and be adjusted as necessary depending on player and server volumes. At first, there may be 3 levels. It could be expanded to 5 levels. Servers can allow certain ranges of skill. For example, a server can allow all ranges of skill, ranges lower than a particular skill point, all ranges higher, or in-between as desired.
e) There will still be plenty of room for improvement for every player. The game won't have one skill plateau, but will have several instead. There is also an incentive to improve, to get better rankings, character levels, and more depending on how successful the game is.
f) Statistics can be gathered from games played at certain ranges of skill, which better represents the state of balance in the game. This way, the developers can get a better idea of what is broken, what is not, and what needs adjustment.
Like I said, there is a lot more detail that can be worked into this idea and it can be refined to make it more practical and more useful.
Comments
So the Servers have an option like only players between '0-100' Points can join this one. Noob server, Medium, and so on.
But what if the first bunch of players (1-3 months after release) is at the highest Stage and only a few new players are coming every next month. The Stages between Noob and Pro are very thin played. So it would require weeks or months to get to the next stage because there are only a few players and you can't level up like in the beginning..
But what if the first bunch of players (1-3 months after release) is at the highest Stage and only a few new players are coming every next month. The Stages between Noob and Pro are very thin played. So it would require weeks or months to get to the next stage because there are only a few players and you can't level up like in the beginning..
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This needs to be tweaked according to the situation. Many players just don't improve significantly, they will always play at a certain level or skill plateau. As long as they are happy there, there is no problem. I'm fairly confident that there will always be populated newbie and medium servers, if those are two levels. If necessary, newbie players can be allowed to join medium servers (but they should be told that it will be much more difficult and to do it when they are ready). The medium servers will always have volume, because that is probably the most difficult skill plateau to leave. Likewise, medium players can be allowed access to some pro servers but again, at their own risk.
There can also be options for server administrators to allow medium players in pro servers or not to allow them. Likewise, an option to allow newbie players into medium servers and not to allow them.
This way, hopefully only a few select servers will be pro/newbie only.
If NS2 became huge (and I'm talking C-S huge) then it wouldn't be a problem, but I'm a bit wary of it during the initial releases.
Oh- and individual skill lowered since 1.04? Do you remember the 1.04 fade and lerk? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Also, you don't improve by playing with bad players, aside from learning the basics- so there'd be no need to have loads of different zones- just beginner, experienced and veteran.
The option to allow all players on servers would be fine as well.
more on topic:
I like the idea, but there has to be a lot more support for new players like tutorials, ingame help, manual and more (all up-to-date), if they don't play with better players on a server, who show them how to play.
LOL, and if i want to show ns for one of my friends who is beigner how the hell do i join a server where he is playing? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />))))
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could:
a) make your own listen server
b) join an unregulated server
c) have him join a medium server which allows veteran players (if you are a veteran)
d) join a newbie server that allows medium players (if you are a medium player)
Youll have to think about the fact that this promotes certain bad stuff such as stat padding. (yay, I want higher rank!)
My idea of a ranking system was actually for a range of experience. Number of games played (won/lost) and points (for building and for killing enemies, perhaps also for welding and other objectives) can be used in conjunction with multipliers that factor in the effects of stacking and game events.
For example, the distribution of ranks of one team can be compared to that of the other team (use a 5 point analysis). If it is balanced, both teams get experience multipliers of 1 for the duration of the game. If one team has a rank advantage, the multiplier is scaled to be less than 1 for that team and more than 1 for the disadvantaged team.
Another example, if a team is being spawncamped, locational points can come into play. If players are killed within 3-4 seconds of spawning, not much experience is gained since a multiplier changes.
If one team controls the majority of the map or has a heavy technological advantage over another team, <b>in addition to</b> a continuing divergence of average k:d ratios between the teams (in other words, one team is consistently killing the other team), then there would be a multiplier to make rank increases minimal.
"I won't drop a hive, I want to fade for frags." This was actually a huge problem back in the days of hamburg, where all the competitive players would pub 10vs10 (I think...I don't recall the exact numbers). This problem is already around even without stats. However, off the top of my head, perhaps you can assign negative character traits to players, such as "selfishness". This would apply to players who waste their res - go fade or another higher lifeform and consistently die without contributing much in terms of kills or points. This character trait would be visible to the public and thus server operators may choose to filter for this trait.
I don't know if I want to go as far as to suggest variables that force players to take on certain roles.. I don't believe in that.
Here's my 2 cents:
First off, be very specific about what frags count towards ranks, to prevent people playing for ranks rather than their team. For example, cap the miscellanious frags experiance value. After meeting that cap, a fade could only gain "rank xp" for killing marines in hive rooms, marines near sieges, marines attacking allied structures, or killing marine structures. You could also reward players for parasiting, building structures, welding, commanding, and other strategic elements. Most importantly, reward players their "rank xp" at the end of the round, to encourage people to stay in the game.
Second, I'd love to see ns icons of frequently played roles along with maybe a "rank level" on the scoreboard, so people can know if someone has had experiance as commander or fade. It would be a lot better looking than just a rank.
Third, I don't like any idea of player segregation, providing the option encourages discrimination. New players get better faster playing with skilled players. New players against new players lead to bad habits and expecting a lower level of play. Segregation should be left up to the server owners and the players.
I'm not sure about the limitations for NS2, but any kind of rank system to progress system is good in my eyes.
*i wont drop hive, i wanna fade for frags*
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that's different from how things are right now.... how? Sorry, I run into this problem ALL the time.
Offset it by giving players team-based scores. Rines get a very small amount, but some, for building structures or more for going to the order beacon that the comm gave them. Comm gets scores for most of his actions except medspam.
Aliens mostly get them from frags, but gorges get them based on healing amounts, structure building, tons of them for hive-building, and maybe even some more based on the healing their dropped hive/defense chamber does.
Killing isn't the only way to help the team, so frags shouldn't be the only reward out there.
Teams now don't really work together well. It's all about the individual, which doesn't make much sense. In war, do humans all do their own thing, or do they listen to a commander? Should aliens all be separate, or should they hunt like wolves, in packs?
Either way, people don't seem to care about the team anymore, just about what they want to do. Anyone who goes against what that person wants gets cursed out and called a noob.
I've always loved games with stats, and would be happy to see this kind of thing, but the main issue is people playing for stats and not for their team.
Here's my 2 cents:
First off, be very specific about what frags count towards ranks, to prevent people playing for ranks rather than their team. For example, cap the miscellanious frags experiance value. After meeting that cap, a fade could only gain "rank xp" for killing marines in hive rooms, marines near sieges, marines attacking allied structures, or killing marine structures. You could also reward players for parasiting, building structures, welding, commanding, and other strategic elements. Most importantly, reward players their "rank xp" at the end of the round, to encourage people to stay in the game.
Second, I'd love to see ns icons of frequently played roles along with maybe a "rank level" on the scoreboard, so people can know if someone has had experiance as commander or fade. It would be a lot better looking than just a rank.
Third, I don't like any idea of player segregation, providing the option encourages discrimination. New players get better faster playing with skilled players. New players against new players lead to bad habits and expecting a lower level of play. Segregation should be left up to the server owners and the players.
I'm not sure about the limitations for NS2, but any kind of rank system to progress system is good in my eyes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like your ideas. I disagree with your view on segregation and discrimination though. There is already discrimination now against good players just because they can play at a much higher level than the rest of pubbers. Truth is that people don't necessarily want to get better. People want to enjoy the game primarily, not learn how to play it well.
I dunno, this system is kind of a protection of newbies. I for one would like to be able to play on my reg server with newbie buddies to instruct them ingame. I mean what good is a server with all newbies not learning much due to the absence of reg players.
Server atmospehere shouldn't be dependant on ingame features, it should be dependant on the ability of admins to run the place imho.
It's a very good an thought out idea. But I just don't like it ^_^
Is ns2 going to be about promoting teamplay or fragging? That's the first question which has to be answered.. Dunno, me presonally, I'm really opposed to systems which introduce a score based reward...
I dunno, this system is kind of a protection of newbies. I for one would like to be able to play on my reg server with newbie buddies to instruct them ingame. I mean what good is a server with all newbies not learning much due to the absence of reg players.
Server atmospehere shouldn't be dependant on ingame features, it should be dependant on the ability of admins to run the place imho.
It's a very good an thought out idea. But I just don't like it ^_^
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you actually read the replies in this thread, you would have noticed that:
a) server operators can have an option to follow the system or to run a rankings-free server
b) being in a different rank range won't stop you from playing on certain servers, including those from a)
c) the ranking systems do not depend on frag-scores alone
An all-newbie server is ideal for newbies to get accustomed to the game. They will all be at a similar level of skill, not necessarily completely lost. They won't immediately encounter experienced and/or professional players who can wipe the floor with them. Once they've seen how the game is like and have had some fun, they can have the choice to look further at higher levels of play. However, most people like to enjoy a game rather than get good at it.
I still think it would not promote teamplay as it still is only rewarding kills, which is then simply translated into skill... keeping these stat sites in minds, I take it thats the way you wanted to use to determen skill. "Best kills/death ratio" doesn't imply it's the best player, simply because it takes a while to take down some classes (combined effort). And basing this on these stats (I've seen on stat site) is not a true way of messuring skill.
If it is going to be a system like that, it would promote spawncamping, frag stealing etc... Simply laming up the game and perhaps killing servers. It needs something extra.
I'd like to take Return to Castle Wolvenstein and Mechwarrior 4 as examples, combining them both into one system and adding some more stuff
<b>Nice things from Mech warrior 4 it's scoring system:</b>
- Percentage damage done to target
- Killed target (frags)
<b>Return to Castle Wolvenstein:</b>
- Repairing friendlies/fixed friendly buildings (medic, could be the welder/healing gorge)
- Accuracy percentage (bullets fired/bullets hit target)
<b>Additions:</b>
- Deaths
- Percentage building structures
- Welding points (percentage perhaps, since it takes time)
- Destroyed enemy structures (% damage here as well)
The commander would also need some kind of scoring system to determen skill:
- Healing done to marines/medkits ratio
- Time in command console on winning rounds (if he gets out and someone else jumps in when they are winning)
- Time in command console on losing rounds (if he gets out and someone else jumps in when they are winning)
Perhaps we could also do something with % damage taken by weapon types, amount healed (medkit/healthspray sponche etc...) <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
RTCW also had a nice score board on the end of a round, similar to the stat sites. But based on percentages and not single events (kills/deaths) Basicly creating a true "skill" determining system takes more then what stat sites currently record... It would also create more work for the devs. HL2 should be able to record these things though. Maybe it's even possible to have a metamod(plugin) team which is able to create it...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I think a global stats system would be a nice addition. There are other team-based games where a global stats system, with ranks, doesn't really detract from the team-based gameplay due to "ego".
When I play games like Battlefield 2, where my teammates ranks are displayed as icons above their shoulders, I feel respect towards people who have earned a higher rank. Oftentimes these players turn into leaders because their rank is openly displayed above their heads. Other players tend to follow them, stick close, mimic their style, and help spot enemies, forming little squads centered around "higher ranking officers".
I think sometimes these "ego battles" start because there is a lack of such a ranking system, and players have a sense that they are all on equal footing, and based on this feeling they get upset when someone outscores them because they're just another equal. But when there is an "official" rank, this is awarded evidence of the player's ability throughout their playing history.
I honestly feel such a global stats system, where openly displayed ranks are shown above players as they play, similar to Battlefield 2, can reward skillful players and discourage bicker fights between the player who knows what he is doing, and the new player who just joined but keeps whining because this other player on "equal footing" keeps whooping their ######.
I also feel it will help with squad based combat, because the less experienced players will see the ranks of their teammates, and subconsciously form little squads centered on helping these more skilled players and learning through observation.
An important part of this system is the publicly displayed icons indicating rank. Without this, the whole system turns into more justification for bickering between players who claim that their global ranking is such and such, but there is no in-game depiction of their stats.
Now, "unlockable" features that rely on rank might be a little unfair in team based combat especially if one team has more higher ranking players than the other. It might be harder to balance the game with such features. Something that might be more fair could be something like "auras" in RPG games, where players of higher rank could affect the hitpoints/armor points of nearby teammates through "morale boosts" or something.
In any case, if there is going to be a global stats system, I highly recommend that the ranks are clearly visible to all players. I also recommend keeping any personal "unlockable" rewards to a minimum, to keep the game easily balanced. Team based "unlockable" rewards such as a "morale boost" to nearby squadmates *would* be good though, since it would help form squads during online play, which would also help the commander group together players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have just a quick point to add to my earlier argument about a global stats system.
I like the system they have implemented in Battlefield 2: Modern Combat for the X Box 360 because the ranks are based on 3 factors, specific skill achievements or "medals" that you earn for perfecting your play in a specific role, total number of points scored over time, and your points per hour.
Now, these "points" are not actually kills, or kill to death ratios, they are points earned from a variety of team-oriented actions while playing, such as flag captures, defending of flags, neutralizing flags, destroying vehicles and also kills. But the heaviest point awards are given for team-based actions, 3 or 2 points, but only 1 point for a "kill" of an enemy player.
If such a system is implemented in NS 2, it should only be awarding team-based actions. The better a team player you are, the higher your rank will be. Perhaps kills and kill to death ratios shouldn't even be a factor. The hard part might be deciding which actions in game are 'team-based' actions, and creating enough diversity of actions so that you can have a rich and complex ranking system.
Overall I feel the Battlefield 2: Modern Combat system actually promotes teamwork, but obviously there are many many others who believe it encourages stats padding, egotistical behavior, and yelling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, people get banned for it all the time, but it still happens too frequently...
Now, that aside, that's the main reason why I'm against any rank system that directly rewards people for either kill counts or KTD's. They're far too easy to exploit, mainly by joining the lowest possible skill server, and killing everything in sight. This then gets recorded as a high number of kills, and a very high relative KTD. Which then spells direct reward for the person ruining the balance of a low skill server. I've had to deal with them before, and got bored of it VERY quickly...
Any kind of ranking system, needs to have only a visual improvment, not a game altering one. Recently, I've been playing on a near conversion server, which had its own ranking system. This was actually only a visual representation on the server, giving people a pictorial rank, which meant little in game, except they were regular, and above the normal skill level, which was fairly reasonable (with a few exceptions), as you'd expect from an aging mod. Obviously, the people with a higher rank were better than that average, which meant that you learned to watch for them. Player names were being shouted out over voicecomms, and their last known location. If they had a high server rank, then you tended to avoid them or gang up to take them down. If you were on their team, then you tended to follow them. If you got attacked, it was either by an unfamiliar player, or it was en masse.
Personally, I felt that kind of system promoted teamwork more than anything else. It allowed people to see who were relatively better than them, and formulate either an avoid, or takedown plan. It also gave them a sense of leadership, having people wanting to be near to them.
Any kind of direct reward by rank system is going to exploited. If there's no direct reward, then there may be less incentive to gain a higher rank, but there is going to be less exploitation, because there is little (to nothing) to be gained from exploiting such a system.
And also, from a purely practical sense, if you introduce kills by location, or relative location to enemy fortifications, then you're going to be introducing a HELL of a lot of location based checks. You can't tie these to the map either, because of differing hives, marine relocations, varying siege spots. The calculations would all have to be done on the fly, bringing more server load, especially for bigger servers (it'd probably kill the G4B2S servers...), because the calculations would have to be done per player, all the time. It's probably not going to include location based checks, but more score and KTD...
under no circumstances should it effect gameplay. it would only reward good players and exploiters.
if you want rewards for killing people, go play combat.
And this proposal isn't introducing any gameplay changes, it's simply making it more interesting to play on server of your own skill level. I personally don't like stats, since the current ones don't get an accurate reading of a player his skill. I for one am VERY pleased that Forgotten Hope 2 will not have any stats/rank system. It's just weird to see for example only officers on the battlefield after a while for a mod which is trying to be historicly accurate <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Also I'm highly opposed to any ranking system with unlockable kits. Imaging having a tank at some base (only able to be destoyed using bazookas/other AT kits. And I'm the only one there, yet I'm not high enough in rank to be able to use it. Those are the things which will BREAK gameplay... This proposal doesnt have this btw...
But if NS2 is going to have it, it better be a true ranking system if its going to be based on skills. I'm just trying to get a picture of what is needed for a skill system. (if it is even possible to create one at all <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )
But as I said before, implementing a skill system based on single events like kills/death ratios is NOT a skill measuring... It needs a lot more things, probably even more then I posted. The real problem is the design of this skill measuring system, since it would need a hell of a lot of variables and tests...
As for the server usage of a stat system, I am not sure how bad it would be really. You can have normal stats collected and then sent to a central server every 5 hours or between map changes. I don't think the stats would be too big size-wise, I could be wrong but hopefully I'm not.
I'm all for level ups BF2 or 2142 style though.
Most of what has been suggested here can be implemented without our assistance. If there is progress on this we can even look to adding more detail to the logs to help develop the stats base.
I certainly don't like the purpose of dys-stats. It really is just a global ranking system with the main focus being on frags, but it demonstrates that communities can organise systems themselves.
To minimise load, you could make the rank system as simple as possible, ie, score, KTDs, etc.
To make it more accurate, you'd have tactical usage of the kills, tech tree researched, how much res got lost on each person you killed, etc.
Accuracy in this case would seriously hurt any server, because you'd have all the extra calcs to figure out the tactical value of the kills (ie, killing the hive, killing in marine start, killing near siege spots, killing in/near double res/res nodes, etc). You'd then have a weighting system based on those kills, you then need to decide a weighting for normal kills in comparison to "tactical" kills. Amount of res carried by target would then need to be taken into consideration for the weighting. How would you implement kills on aliens? Res taken to gestate + time taken for upgrades? Would the upgrades have their own weighting, like Carapace being a better kill than Redemption for DC upgrades?
I certainly agree it's possible for a community to produce a ranking system without creator influence, like puzl offers Dystopia's system. But they seems to only be limited to very simple systems, which the detract from the feeling of the game itself. No ranking system should be the reason why you play the game...