In my vast experience, the ones that are #1 in score on the server are normally the best players (by the end of the game anyhow..that's normally the case unless the player is lowballing a gorge ALL game).
The #2 scorer is normally the #2 in skill approximately. Sometimes not though.
But in either case...If I lead servers again, and again...there's a reason why. And it's not just b/c I go fade or lerk and get kills, b/c if the others could do it--we'd win just by rushing base, but the other people seem not to know how to kill rines without dying as a higher lifeform (some do, but a lot don't so that's why they go gorge and stuff...)
In any case...you can say "well someone has to build". Ya, someone does who doesn't know how to play higher lifes well. Building crap doesn't take any skill. It needs to be done, so if you can build stuff--you should be in the middle of the team somewhere as a perma-gorge.
If you can kill an entire marine time...multiple times over the course of a game (30-50 kills), then you should be #1 on the team b/c you ALONE totally pwned the other team. Ya...you might have had some help with some skulks and lerks, but you got the final bite or swipe or gore or whatever. If you can do that, you should be ranked really high b/c a lot of people can't do that. You should be rewarded for skill in rankings. Kills take skill. Building doesn't.
If you don't feel like building, yet you can't kill--you should get 0 pts (which is where it is now in NS).
imho, the 'point scoring' for NS is a pretty good way to tell who's the best on the alien team, but not the marine team. The marines get no points for building buildings (so that when I'm capping an entire side of the map and no skulks come after me...I get 0 pts, while others are totally #$%#'ing up the aliens with the shotguns and lmgs. So unfair <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />. lol.
The only thing I'd like to say about this suggestion is that <i>if</i> anything like this would ever be implented, it would be better if you only got points for teamwork(healing etc.) and <b>not</b> for frags.
I don't like the idea of any global ranking system. It can never accurately measure how valuable some player actions have been to the team and is only prone to exploits.
One example: Weldering is indisputable a team-oriented action. So the new scoring system would give you points for weldering. Sooner or later people realise it's easier to get points by weldering than by killing aliens. Soon everybody will run around weldering stuff just to get that highest rank. (even if it only means you get some visual upgrades like a badge of rank - people will try to get that) Once everybody has the highest rank the games return to normal and the rank becomes meaningless.
Also keep in mind that the most difficult task you can do in NS, is killing your enemies without dying. Welding/building something may be needed for the team, but everbody can do that. Just point your mouse and hold a button. It makes absolutely no sense why someone should not get points for killing.
The only thing I'd like to change in NS2 is the scoretable and the amount of points you get from some actions. Like MasterPTG already said the scoretable is relatively accurate, but I think it could be better. I guess most of you already played Dystopia. I really like the way scores are allocated there. For example, you kill a heavy armored guy all on your own, you get 3 points. At the location where your opponent died a small HUD message pops up "+3 frag". If you kill someone with help of your teammates you'll get a "+1 assist". If you defend the decker (basically a light armored guy that stand around and can't defend himself) a small message pops up at the top at the screen stating "defending decker". If you kill someone while this message is up, you'll get extra points. If you reach one of the map's objectives or help someone else do this, you get some points too. I'd like NS2 to have a similar system like dystopia, but I'm all against any global ranking systems.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
The system I'm describing isn't supposed to just reward people that can understand teamwork. It is supposed to identify players who can unbalance games. By bundling the players together and encouraging them to play on servers with more difficult competition, newer and more inexperienced players can enjoy the game more.
I'm stressing that the game is fun for players when they don't get slaughtered. That way they can take the time to get used to the game and like it before making the choice to play at a higher level.
Skilled players can be recognized better in the community, playing on either skill unrestricted servers or in veteran level servers.
There isn't really a point in exploiting the ranking system, although this can be prevented anyway. I don't see why so many people are saying that the ranking idea is doomed.
I'm not actually saying that the idea of a ranking system is doomed, I'm saying that the idea of a ranking system that directly rewards players (ref: Battlefield 2's unlocking system, and the subsequent ranking farming) is doomed to be exploited by people who want that top rank, and everything that comes with it. Remove the direct reward, and you remove a lot of the incentive to exploit that system. Obviously, any kind of ranking system, with either direct, indirect, or no benefit for the players themselves, will be exploited by some people (the "I can do it so I did" group).
At the moment, skill division exists because it is human nature. Not everyone can type at over 200 words per minute, so the secretarial business is one of big gaps, and differing skill levels. The same is true for NS. Not everyone is as good as the next person. It's impossible to get all the players on an equal footing, no matter how you try and sugar-coat it. If you remove one person from an equation because they're too good for a particular server, and unbalance the game in every way, then you are removing a player from (potentially) their favourite server. They then have to find a new server to become regular on, because their old server is "too noobish" for them. Player segregation shouldn't be done by an automated system. It should be done by actual admins, who can then decide whether or not that person is a sufficient imbalance to the server, to warrant banning them. At least that way, an empathic ear can be leant to the person in question. What's then to stop that person as they get higher toward the food chain (as it were) from "lowballing", and providing a target for the other team to just shoot at. Or to run at another high ranked player, in an effort to remove them from that server in the same manner that they are threatened with?
Like I said, it's not the idea of a rank system that is doomed. It's the idea of a ranking system that directly rewards (or negatively affects) players that is doomed to failure.
<!--quoteo(post=1598540:date=Jan 14 2007, 02:08 AM:name=demm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(demm @ Jan 14 2007, 02:08 AM) [snapback]1598540[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Once everybody has the highest rank the games return to normal and the rank becomes meaningless. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Add in a ranking system that also allows demotions. The system shouldn't let bad players achieve the highest rank just because they've played a very long time, it should be an accurate measure of how well they play the game.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited January 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1598193:date=Jan 13 2007, 03:35 AM:name=1stdayplaying)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(1stdayplaying @ Jan 13 2007, 03:35 AM) [snapback]1598193[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> So let me answer with this question and type it in large, bold text so everybody could read it: <!--coloro:#CC0000--><span style="color:#CC0000"><!--/coloro--><!--sizeo:40--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><!--fonto:System--><span style="font-family:System"><!--/fonto-->WHAT IS WRONG WITH FRAGS? IF YOU'RE BAD AND CAN'T KILL SOMETHING, WHY SHOULD YOU GET MORE POINTS THAN THE GUY WHO IS 10x BETTER THAN YOU?<!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Simple <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
It takes a team to take thing down. So no, frags alone has absolutely NOTHING to do with skill. It's a combination of percentage damage people did to the target and the killing blow. And perhaps an accuracy system mainly for marines(shots fired/actual hits)
yknow I'm getting tired of stating the obvious btw...
Taking down something takes time and more then the single action called frag/killing blow. Having a system only based on the frag is a bad system. For example taking down an Onos to 5% of it's hp, then have someone rush in and frag it. Oh sure that shows the skill of the fragger now doesnt it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
[edit] A skill testing system takes a lot more variables then frag/death ratio. IF it's even possible to create a skill testing system at all. Still there are some nice ideas on how to test for these things, but the real question is. Are devlopers of such a system actually willing to deal with all these variables to be integrated. Since the seemingly frag/death ratio is so popular and easy to implement <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
This idea was thought well, but it has too many bugs. Think about people that aren't "pro" but just play for a long amount of time... EVENTUALLY they would get to a too high ranked server and have to quit and start a new account... Also on ns i like being able to have funny names and changing them compared to who is playing on the server. Not just this but some pro players will start new accounts for new names or just to be mean and rage on newbie pubs.... Yeah thats all
Also your not thinking of dev, they want to make ns2 good but they will have to do so much programming to still come with bugs. I personally believe you should record their points from their ip instead of a single name to allow name changing and also not get points but just upgraded LOOKS on armor and maybe some badges on armor or upgraded looking skin etc. Like other people have posted. This would also have a point to play as you will upgrade armor and look better.
Also your not thinking of dev, they want to make ns2 good but they will have to do so much programming to still come with bugs. I personally believe you should record their points from their ip instead of a single name to allow name changing and also not get points but just upgraded LOOKS on armor and maybe some badges on armor or upgraded looking skin etc. Like other people have posted. This would also have a point to play as you will upgrade armor and look better. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> kezza, records by ip are useless because ips change all the time. Most cable modems, and what not, are assigned ips by dhcp so often every few weeks the ips will switch.
Stats are a bad idea, I explained it in my survey entry. Even team scores like they are today is a bad idea. Too many want to go fade early so they can get lotsa kills rather than go gorge and build or other things. points should be awarded without giving away for what reason and building should count more than killing. NS isn't CS.
Which, of course can be changed by logging into a new account, unlogged on the ranking system. But then that'd cost money.
You'll find that pretty much all habitual cheater will have multiple accounts so they can continue on secure servers. The same thing will happen with a ranking system. People will use multiple accounts, unfortunately
the multiple accounts bit doesn't matter, as a guy is going to play x good on one account and x good on another. Playing on his other account doesn't make him good.
My suggestion:
If you weld someone to full armor, you get 1 pt. added to your score. If you weld a structure to full health, you get 2 pts. added to your score. If you heal the hive over 25% health over a period of 2 minutes, you get 2 pts. added to your score. If you heal a structure or lifeform to full health/armor, you get a pt. If you heal kill a marine, you get 5 pts. If you weld kill an alien, you get 10 pts. If you kill a alien or marine, you get 2 pts. If you kill an enemy structure, you get 3 pts.
At the end of the round, the global stats system sends a nice little packet of info about the round. It tracks by using your steam ID.
Your score would be [ (player's score)/(time in minutes/15) ] and that would be sent to the global server and averaged in with all your other games' scores for the past 4 months.
Another score that would be sent is your simple K:D ratio. Both would be tracked and would reward icons to top users of EACH category (K:D & score). Top 5000 get one star by name. Top 500 two stars. Top 50 three stars, and Top 5 four stars. It'd be tough to get 3 stars. Not so hard to get 2...and easy to get one (if your any good <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />).
<!--quoteo(post=1599168:date=Jan 16 2007, 12:25 AM:name=MasterPTG)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MasterPTG @ Jan 16 2007, 12:25 AM) [snapback]1599168[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If you weld kill an alien, you get 10 pts. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why? If you weld kill an alien it just means someone else already did most of the damage to that alien. So why would you get so many points just because you finished the last few HPs?
Also it would be better if the points awarded for kills where also distributed by damage % and not just finishing blow.
Keep in mind that this system does not take the strategical value of a kill/building into account, which I think should be an important part.
Since NS is about map domination (=RTs) people should get extra points building RTs and even defending them. So when a skulk bites an RT and a marine shoots it, he should get extra points because his kill was more important than e.g. killing a skulk in an empty hallway.
Another thing the scoring system would have to consider before giving points is how fair the teams are. So if one team has a much higher average rank then the other, the round should not count at all. Also if there are too few players for a "real" NS match the round should not be scored. (e.g. someone joins his favourite server which is empty, just to fill it. Slowly other people join and they play a 2vs2 round just for fun. Points from a round like this wouldn't mean anything)
As I said before, it's nearly impossible to find a system that accurately determines the player's strenght without being exploitable. So I'm still against any global ranking system.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
Designing a good "skill" testing system will not succeed with a oversimplyfied system. Kill/death ratio systems are way to easy to exploit <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Return to Castle Wolvenstein (and mod enemy territory) Mechwarrior 4
those games have pretty extended scoring systems, but even those are not flawless...
<!--quoteo(post=1599583:date=Jan 17 2007, 11:48 AM:name=MasterPTG)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MasterPTG @ Jan 17 2007, 11:48 AM) [snapback]1599583[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You're making it too complicated. The more complicated it gets, the more unviable it is. I follow the "Keep it simple, stupid" principle.
=D <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i absolutly cant aggree with that. maybe it sometimes is the best, but on this topic it definitly isnt. to calculate an aggreeing skill to each player you need a lot of factors and the factors all depend on how <i><b>you</b></i> define 'skill' - in NS
but never ever try it with the 'keep it simple' principle on this project... please
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
How about this: Tags
In the following, I'll use C as a constant to be tweaked as necessary.
1. Experience tag :
Use something like exp = C x ln[(rounds played)(hours played)]
2. Cooperation tag :
Something like cooperation=number of objectives welded + number of structures built + amount of armor or build HP welded
3. Effectiveness:
change in Effec = C*ln(points for killing player + C) Effec = Sum of changes in Effec
4. Efficiency:
change in effic = Sum(points for killing player x # players killed) - Sum(points for getting killed as a player x # deaths) Effic = C*e^(player count in server) * change in effic
The formulas are probably not going to be in agreement with some situations. However, I think a combination of these tags could be used as a good representation of a player's skill.
I believe this could be the best idea so far for NS2, stats gives multiplayer games a lot more of lifetime and replay value, its one huge reason to keep coming back to play again over and over. It's a proven science, just ask any BF2 or BF2142 player like me. I keep going back to those games just to boost my rank and unlocks!
Also i enjoy the game, just as much as i love NS. Sadly at least for me, now NS servers are plagued with a stupid buildmenu plugin that screws CO mode, NS maps are fine so far but i really love CO mode. Sry went off-topic here.
Just check my example, here are my BF2 and 2142 stats that anyone can see and compare:
(BF212 player name is not craphand, its barzobius btw)
I believe this is possible, and i wish this actually happens. I bet that the single fact that NS2 gets stats will change the whole dimension of the game, and attract more new ppl. I know lots of ppl that doesn't play many known games like for example, CS and the alike just because they have no stats.
I really hope this post gets to the eyes of the devs and its taken into big consideration.
I hope global ranking wont be included in NS2. It'd ruin the whole game. NS is uniqe, 'cuz of the RTS feeleing, but this way, it'd be only a game like AvP, or like a BF2 mod, whats about to kill teammates, for their wpns, cuz you want to slay the skulk with hmg, and you want to get better rank. I hope the developers will understand that, and not ruining NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1600321:date=Jan 20 2007, 02:39 AM:name=CrapHand)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CrapHand @ Jan 20 2007, 02:39 AM) [snapback]1600321[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> ... stats gives multiplayer games a lot more of lifetime and replay value... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So tell my why HL1 (released 1998) has around 3 times more players then BF2 (released 2005). None of the HL1 mods have any kind of global stats.
The reason why people play games is, that they're fun. It's fun to feel some kind of success when you win a game. It's even more fun when you have the feeling that you get better at the game. Once you reached a certain amount of skill in a game, you will try to increase it. That's what makes you play the games again and again. Some kind of global rank that tries to measure your skill will only have negative effects on this situation. Because if your rank doesn't match with the level of skill you feel you have, it will get frustrating. So instead of trying to get better, the players will try to increase their rank. And that is not the same.
For player statistics, look <a href="http://www.onlinegamingzeitgeist.com/games/" target="_blank">here</a>.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
I'm not even suggesting that there be global stats available. Somewhere along the line the idea was tossed around so I am entertaining it. However, I'm really looking for three different levels of ability that can separate players and allow server operators to protect the lowest skilled from the highest skilled.
The stats can stay on some central server, possibly based on some combination of the equations (maybe with improvements) I previously mentioned. I did like the idea of having icons next to veteran players, since newer players can then understand why they are being slaughtered if they happen to play on a skill unregulated server. Personally I don't care for seeing stats. I also don't think they would really matter if they did exist but were not part of a global ranking system that people could see (i.e. top 100 or something) - instead just something that you can check your progress in.
<!--quoteo(post=1600354:date=Jan 20 2007, 06:58 AM:name=demm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(demm @ Jan 20 2007, 06:58 AM) [snapback]1600354[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> So instead of trying to get better, the players will try to increase their rank. And that is not the same. For player statistics, look <a href="http://www.onlinegamingzeitgeist.com/games/" target="_blank">here</a>. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> that just depends on how complex the system is worked out. for example, as NSSlayer said before, killing teammates to get a better weapon -> rank. you would simply need to decreas the players skill by 10% for each teamkill, and im sure nothing like that is going to happen <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
i basically like the idea, but it could become complicated to finger out what action inscreases/decreases someones skill for how many point
hard piece of work, but if done well := very nice <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1600354:date=Jan 20 2007, 11:58 AM:name=demm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(demm @ Jan 20 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]1600354[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> So tell my why HL1 (released 1998) has around 3 times more players then BF2 (released 2005). None of the HL1 mods have any kind of global stats.
The reason why people play games is, that they're fun. It's fun to feel some kind of success when you win a game. It's even more fun when you have the feeling that you get better at the game. Once you reached a certain amount of skill in a game, you will try to increase it. That's what makes you play the games again and again. Some kind of global rank that tries to measure your skill will only have negative effects on this situation. Because if your rank doesn't match with the level of skill you feel you have, it will get frustrating. So instead of trying to get better, the players will try to increase their rank. And that is not the same. For player statistics, look <a href="http://www.onlinegamingzeitgeist.com/games/" target="_blank">here</a>. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) They are both awesome games by their own.
2) HL1 can run on almost any computer, unlike BF franchise
3) 7 years difference
4) Global rankings are never something unneeded, always adds more to something that's already good, making it just better.
5) No special need of unlocks, but STATS adds juice
6) There are players that might never ever check the stats even once, but i'm pretty sure the other 80% will
There's no negative effect on it. Just open your mind, the only picture we could see here is the best getting better.
Stats are never going to be exactly what I think about myself, and I never pay much attention to stats anyways. The one thing I don't like in games is awards for being more "skilled", your extra skill should be the factor that makes you good, not even better weapons (this is why CS:S and CS mostly fail).
Planetside, an MMOFPS, took a different approach and uses a system of "certifications" as you gain levels. These certifications don't necessarily give you better weapons, but they allow you to equip different types of weapons, and the more certifications you have, the more versatile you are. If anything, I would like to see some sort of "certification" system in NS2; but I think it would be too complicated.
Maybe the most viable thing for NS2 in the place of unlockables/levels would be a sort of "weapon training" and "alien training" for every Steam account. Basically, as you accumulate levels making kills or getting recommendations or whatever, you gain "proficiency points". You can use these points to upgrade the accuracy of your weapons, the reload time of your weapons, maximum clip size, bite strength, or other skills at a slight level. You could start out with enough points to max out a few skills if you wanted too, or evenly distribute them; but as you play more you get more points to spread out.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1600539:date=Jan 21 2007, 01:26 AM:name=Zerohourrct)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zerohourrct @ Jan 21 2007, 01:26 AM) [snapback]1600539[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Maybe the most viable thing for NS2 in the place of unlockables/levels would be a sort of "weapon training" and "alien training" for every Steam account. Basically, as you accumulate levels making kills or getting recommendations or whatever, you gain "proficiency points". You can use these points to upgrade the accuracy of your weapons, the reload time of your weapons, maximum clip size, bite strength, or other skills at a slight level. You could start out with enough points to max out a few skills if you wanted too, or evenly distribute them; but as you play more you get more points to spread out. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would make it too much like combat invading classic.
X player gets Y score as follows: (59score)/( [16minutesplayed]/[15 minutes]) = 55.31 score per fifteen minutes of playtime.
The higher your average score is, the higher your rating in terms of "Score ranking".
There would be a second ranking system for K:D ratio. lol.
Top 5000 peeps get 1 star top 500 peeps get 2 stars by their name... top 50 get 3 stars...whatever
give peeps some sort of reward for being good. Or even do it as a % basis. Are you in the .1% bracket? you get uber triple gold line. Are you in the top 50% bracket? You get a bronze circle. etc etc. Lots of ways to do it.
I don't see what the big deal is, I've played with people who play for stats, it just adds to the satisfaction of killing them.
All I really want to see is some recognition for peoples achievements, I don't want unlockable upgrades, I dont want any sort of increased power compared to lower level players. Sure people will play for stats and cheat, but doesn't that happen anyways?
Ranks do not add to a player's skill, those who take shortcuts and exploit the system will still be bad players, and those that lord it over other players will just be banned. The ranks would just show who's most likely to know what their doing.
Heres a very basic equation to prevent stat building over teamwork, assuming xp is only given to players if they stay the whole round. For all players involved: <b>(XP for Event + (Constant * Number of teammates in area) ) / Number of teammates in area)</b> * (Victems Rank / Your Rank) / <b>(Number of times youve triggered this event + 1)</b>
There you go, a player will only gain so much experience doing one thing. killing higher ranked players will add to your score more than killing lower level players. Teaming up will divide up the xp, but add to the amount divided. And finally, if you try to stat build all game, you'll start getting almost nothing. Someone who squads up, welds their teammates, builds buildings, and kills threats will get more xp than someone who just tries for frags, since they did a large variety of team based actions.
Comments
The #2 scorer is normally the #2 in skill approximately. Sometimes not though.
But in either case...If I lead servers again, and again...there's a reason why. And it's not just b/c I go fade or lerk and get kills, b/c if the others could do it--we'd win just by rushing base, but the other people seem not to know how to kill rines without dying as a higher lifeform (some do, but a lot don't so that's why they go gorge and stuff...)
In any case...you can say "well someone has to build". Ya, someone does who doesn't know how to play higher lifes well. Building crap doesn't take any skill. It needs to be done, so if you can build stuff--you should be in the middle of the team somewhere as a perma-gorge.
If you can kill an entire marine time...multiple times over the course of a game (30-50 kills), then you should be #1 on the team b/c you ALONE totally pwned the other team. Ya...you might have had some help with some skulks and lerks, but you got the final bite or swipe or gore or whatever. If you can do that, you should be ranked really high b/c a lot of people can't do that. You should be rewarded for skill in rankings. Kills take skill. Building doesn't.
If you don't feel like building, yet you can't kill--you should get 0 pts (which is where it is now in NS).
imho, the 'point scoring' for NS is a pretty good way to tell who's the best on the alien team, but not the marine team. The marines get no points for building buildings (so that when I'm capping an entire side of the map and no skulks come after me...I get 0 pts, while others are totally #$%#'ing up the aliens with the shotguns and lmgs. So unfair <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />. lol.
One example: Weldering is indisputable a team-oriented action. So the new scoring system would give you points for weldering. Sooner or later people realise it's easier to get points by weldering than by killing aliens. Soon everybody will run around weldering stuff just to get that highest rank. (even if it only means you get some visual upgrades like a badge of rank - people will try to get that) Once everybody has the highest rank the games return to normal and the rank becomes meaningless.
Also keep in mind that the most difficult task you can do in NS, is killing your enemies without dying. Welding/building something may be needed for the team, but everbody can do that. Just point your mouse and hold a button. It makes absolutely no sense why someone should not get points for killing.
The only thing I'd like to change in NS2 is the scoretable and the amount of points you get from some actions. Like MasterPTG already said the scoretable is relatively accurate, but I think it could be better.
I guess most of you already played Dystopia. I really like the way scores are allocated there.
For example, you kill a heavy armored guy all on your own, you get 3 points. At the location where your opponent died a small HUD message pops up "+3 frag". If you kill someone with help of your teammates you'll get a "+1 assist". If you defend the decker (basically a light armored guy that stand around and can't defend himself) a small message pops up at the top at the screen stating "defending decker". If you kill someone while this message is up, you'll get extra points. If you reach one of the map's objectives or help someone else do this, you get some points too.
I'd like NS2 to have a similar system like dystopia, but I'm all against any global ranking systems.
I'm stressing that the game is fun for players when they don't get slaughtered. That way they can take the time to get used to the game and like it before making the choice to play at a higher level.
Skilled players can be recognized better in the community, playing on either skill unrestricted servers or in veteran level servers.
There isn't really a point in exploiting the ranking system, although this can be prevented anyway. I don't see why so many people are saying that the ranking idea is doomed.
Obviously, any kind of ranking system, with either direct, indirect, or no benefit for the players themselves, will be exploited by some people (the "I can do it so I did" group).
At the moment, skill division exists because it is human nature. Not everyone can type at over 200 words per minute, so the secretarial business is one of big gaps, and differing skill levels. The same is true for NS. Not everyone is as good as the next person. It's impossible to get all the players on an equal footing, no matter how you try and sugar-coat it. If you remove one person from an equation because they're too good for a particular server, and unbalance the game in every way, then you are removing a player from (potentially) their favourite server. They then have to find a new server to become regular on, because their old server is "too noobish" for them. Player segregation shouldn't be done by an automated system. It should be done by actual admins, who can then decide whether or not that person is a sufficient imbalance to the server, to warrant banning them. At least that way, an empathic ear can be leant to the person in question.
What's then to stop that person as they get higher toward the food chain (as it were) from "lowballing", and providing a target for the other team to just shoot at. Or to run at another high ranked player, in an effort to remove them from that server in the same manner that they are threatened with?
Like I said, it's not the idea of a rank system that is doomed. It's the idea of a ranking system that directly rewards (or negatively affects) players that is doomed to failure.
Once everybody has the highest rank the games return to normal and the rank becomes meaningless.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Add in a ranking system that also allows demotions. The system shouldn't let bad players achieve the highest rank just because they've played a very long time, it should be an accurate measure of how well they play the game.
Edit: Typo.
So let me answer with this question and type it in large, bold text so everybody could read it: <!--coloro:#CC0000--><span style="color:#CC0000"><!--/coloro--><!--sizeo:40--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><!--fonto:System--><span style="font-family:System"><!--/fonto-->WHAT IS WRONG WITH FRAGS? IF YOU'RE BAD AND CAN'T KILL SOMETHING, WHY SHOULD YOU GET MORE POINTS THAN THE GUY WHO IS 10x BETTER THAN YOU?<!--fontc--></span><!--/fontc--><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simple <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
It takes a team to take thing down. So no, frags alone has absolutely NOTHING to do with skill. It's a combination of percentage damage people did to the target and the killing blow. And perhaps an accuracy system mainly for marines(shots fired/actual hits)
yknow I'm getting tired of stating the obvious btw...
Taking down something takes time and more then the single action called frag/killing blow. Having a system only based on the frag is a bad system. For example taking down an Onos to 5% of it's hp, then have someone rush in and frag it. Oh sure that shows the skill of the fragger now doesnt it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
[edit]
A skill testing system takes a lot more variables then frag/death ratio. IF it's even possible to create a skill testing system at all. Still there are some nice ideas on how to test for these things, but the real question is. Are devlopers of such a system actually willing to deal with all these variables to be integrated. Since the seemingly frag/death ratio is so popular and easy to implement <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
*sheesh/sigh*
Also your not thinking of dev, they want to make ns2 good but they will have to do so much programming to still come with bugs. I personally believe you should record their points from their ip instead of a single name to allow name changing and also not get points but just upgraded LOOKS on armor and maybe some badges on armor or upgraded looking skin etc. Like other people have posted. This would also have a point to play as you will upgrade armor and look better.
Also your not thinking of dev, they want to make ns2 good but they will have to do so much programming to still come with bugs. I personally believe you should record their points from their ip instead of a single name to allow name changing and also not get points but just upgraded LOOKS on armor and maybe some badges on armor or upgraded looking skin etc. Like other people have posted. This would also have a point to play as you will upgrade armor and look better.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
kezza, records by ip are useless because ips change all the time. Most cable modems, and what not, are assigned ips by dhcp so often every few weeks the ips will switch.
Stats are a bad idea, I explained it in my survey entry. Even team scores like they are today is a bad idea. Too many want to go fade early so they can get lotsa kills rather than go gorge and build or other things. points should be awarded without giving away for what reason and building should count more than killing. NS isn't CS.
But then that'd cost money.
You'll find that pretty much all habitual cheater will have multiple accounts so they can continue on secure servers. The same thing will happen with a ranking system. People will use multiple accounts, unfortunately
My suggestion:
If you weld someone to full armor, you get 1 pt. added to your score.
If you weld a structure to full health, you get 2 pts. added to your score.
If you heal the hive over 25% health over a period of 2 minutes, you get 2 pts. added to your score.
If you heal a structure or lifeform to full health/armor, you get a pt.
If you heal kill a marine, you get 5 pts.
If you weld kill an alien, you get 10 pts.
If you kill a alien or marine, you get 2 pts.
If you kill an enemy structure, you get 3 pts.
At the end of the round, the global stats system sends a nice little packet of info about the round. It tracks by using your steam ID.
Your score would be [ (player's score)/(time in minutes/15) ] and that would be sent to the global server and averaged in with all your other games' scores for the past 4 months.
Another score that would be sent is your simple K:D ratio. Both would be tracked and would reward icons to top users of EACH category (K:D & score). Top 5000 get one star by name. Top 500 two stars. Top 50 three stars, and Top 5 four stars. It'd be tough to get 3 stars. Not so hard to get 2...and easy to get one (if your any good <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />).
If you weld kill an alien, you get 10 pts.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? If you weld kill an alien it just means someone else already did most of the damage to that alien. So why would you get so many points just because you finished the last few HPs?
Also it would be better if the points awarded for kills where also distributed by damage % and not just finishing blow.
Keep in mind that this system does not take the strategical value of a kill/building into account, which I think should be an important part.
Since NS is about map domination (=RTs) people should get extra points building RTs and even defending them. So when a skulk bites an RT and a marine shoots it, he should get extra points because his kill was more important than e.g. killing a skulk in an empty hallway.
Another thing the scoring system would have to consider before giving points is how fair the teams are. So if one team has a much higher average rank then the other, the round should not count at all. Also if there are too few players for a "real" NS match the round should not be scored. (e.g. someone joins his favourite server which is empty, just to fill it. Slowly other people join and they play a 2vs2 round just for fun. Points from a round like this wouldn't mean anything)
As I said before, it's nearly impossible to find a system that accurately determines the player's strenght without being exploitable. So I'm still against any global ranking system.
You're making it too complicated. The more complicated it gets, the more unviable it is. I follow the "Keep it simple, stupid" principle.
=D
Return to Castle Wolvenstein (and mod enemy territory)
Mechwarrior 4
those games have pretty extended scoring systems, but even those are not flawless...
You're making it too complicated. The more complicated it gets, the more unviable it is. I follow the "Keep it simple, stupid" principle.
=D
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i absolutly cant aggree with that. maybe it sometimes is the best, but on this topic it definitly isnt.
to calculate an aggreeing skill to each player you need a lot of factors
and the factors all depend on how <i><b>you</b></i> define 'skill' - in NS
but never ever try it with the 'keep it simple' principle on this project... please
In the following, I'll use C as a constant to be tweaked as necessary.
1. Experience tag :
Use something like exp = C x ln[(rounds played)(hours played)]
2. Cooperation tag :
Something like cooperation=number of objectives welded + number of structures built + amount of armor or build HP welded
3. Effectiveness:
change in Effec = C*ln(points for killing player + C)
Effec = Sum of changes in Effec
4. Efficiency:
change in effic = Sum(points for killing player x # players killed) - Sum(points for getting killed as a player x # deaths)
Effic = C*e^(player count in server) * change in effic
The formulas are probably not going to be in agreement with some situations. However, I think a combination of these tags could be used as a good representation of a player's skill.
Also i enjoy the game, just as much as i love NS. Sadly at least for me, now NS servers are plagued with a stupid buildmenu plugin that screws CO mode, NS maps are fine so far but i really love CO mode. Sry went off-topic here.
Just check my example, here are my BF2 and 2142 stats that anyone can see and compare:
BF2: <a href="http://bf2s.com/player/47265795/" target="_blank">http://bf2s.com/player/47265795/</a>
BF2142: <a href="http://battlefield.ea.com/battlefield/bf2142/PlayerSummary.aspx?Lang=us&SrchName=&Profiles=&PID=84838673" target="_blank">http://battlefield.ea.com/battlefield/bf21...mp;PID=84838673</a>
(BF212 player name is not craphand, its barzobius btw)
I believe this is possible, and i wish this actually happens. I bet that the single fact that NS2 gets stats will change the whole dimension of the game, and attract more new ppl. I know lots of ppl that doesn't play many known games like for example, CS and the alike just because they have no stats.
I really hope this post gets to the eyes of the devs and its taken into big consideration.
... stats gives multiplayer games a lot more of lifetime and replay value...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So tell my why HL1 (released 1998) has around 3 times more players then BF2 (released 2005). None of the HL1 mods have any kind of global stats.
The reason why people play games is, that they're fun. It's fun to feel some kind of success when you win a game. It's even more fun when you have the feeling that you get better at the game. Once you reached a certain amount of skill in a game, you will try to increase it. That's what makes you play the games again and again.
Some kind of global rank that tries to measure your skill will only have negative effects on this situation. Because if your rank doesn't match with the level of skill you feel you have, it will get frustrating. So instead of trying to get better, the players will try to increase their rank. And that is not the same.
For player statistics, look <a href="http://www.onlinegamingzeitgeist.com/games/" target="_blank">here</a>.
The stats can stay on some central server, possibly based on some combination of the equations (maybe with improvements) I previously mentioned. I did like the idea of having icons next to veteran players, since newer players can then understand why they are being slaughtered if they happen to play on a skill unregulated server. Personally I don't care for seeing stats. I also don't think they would really matter if they did exist but were not part of a global ranking system that people could see (i.e. top 100 or something) - instead just something that you can check your progress in.
So instead of trying to get better, the players will try to increase their rank. And that is not the same.
For player statistics, look <a href="http://www.onlinegamingzeitgeist.com/games/" target="_blank">here</a>.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that just depends on how complex the system is worked out.
for example, as NSSlayer said before, killing teammates to get a better weapon -> rank. you would simply need to decreas the players skill by 10% for each teamkill, and im sure nothing like that is going to happen <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
i basically like the idea, but it could become complicated to finger out what action inscreases/decreases someones skill for how many point
hard piece of work, but if done well := very nice <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
So tell my why HL1 (released 1998) has around 3 times more players then BF2 (released 2005). None of the HL1 mods have any kind of global stats.
The reason why people play games is, that they're fun. It's fun to feel some kind of success when you win a game. It's even more fun when you have the feeling that you get better at the game. Once you reached a certain amount of skill in a game, you will try to increase it. That's what makes you play the games again and again.
Some kind of global rank that tries to measure your skill will only have negative effects on this situation. Because if your rank doesn't match with the level of skill you feel you have, it will get frustrating. So instead of trying to get better, the players will try to increase their rank. And that is not the same.
For player statistics, look <a href="http://www.onlinegamingzeitgeist.com/games/" target="_blank">here</a>.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) They are both awesome games by their own.
2) HL1 can run on almost any computer, unlike BF franchise
3) 7 years difference
4) Global rankings are never something unneeded, always adds more to something that's already good, making it just better.
5) No special need of unlocks, but STATS adds juice
6) There are players that might never ever check the stats even once, but i'm pretty sure the other 80% will
There's no negative effect on it. Just open your mind, the only picture we could see here is the best getting better.
Planetside, an MMOFPS, took a different approach and uses a system of "certifications" as you gain levels. These certifications don't necessarily give you better weapons, but they allow you to equip different types of weapons, and the more certifications you have, the more versatile you are. If anything, I would like to see some sort of "certification" system in NS2; but I think it would be too complicated.
Maybe the most viable thing for NS2 in the place of unlockables/levels would be a sort of "weapon training" and "alien training" for every Steam account. Basically, as you accumulate levels making kills or getting recommendations or whatever, you gain "proficiency points". You can use these points to upgrade the accuracy of your weapons, the reload time of your weapons, maximum clip size, bite strength, or other skills at a slight level. You could start out with enough points to max out a few skills if you wanted too, or evenly distribute them; but as you play more you get more points to spread out.
Maybe the most viable thing for NS2 in the place of unlockables/levels would be a sort of "weapon training" and "alien training" for every Steam account. Basically, as you accumulate levels making kills or getting recommendations or whatever, you gain "proficiency points". You can use these points to upgrade the accuracy of your weapons, the reload time of your weapons, maximum clip size, bite strength, or other skills at a slight level. You could start out with enough points to max out a few skills if you wanted too, or evenly distribute them; but as you play more you get more points to spread out.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would make it too much like combat invading classic.
Hm, as I've suggested b/f:
X player gets Y score as follows:
(59score)/( [16minutesplayed]/[15 minutes]) = 55.31 score per fifteen minutes of playtime.
The higher your average score is, the higher your rating in terms of "Score ranking".
There would be a second ranking system for K:D ratio. lol.
Top 5000 peeps get 1 star
top 500 peeps get 2 stars by their name...
top 50 get 3 stars...whatever
give peeps some sort of reward for being good. Or even do it as a % basis. Are you in the .1% bracket? you get uber triple gold line. Are you in the top 50% bracket? You get a bronze circle. etc etc. Lots of ways to do it.
All I really want to see is some recognition for peoples achievements, I don't want unlockable upgrades, I dont want any sort of increased power compared to lower level players. Sure people will play for stats and cheat, but doesn't that happen anyways?
Ranks do not add to a player's skill, those who take shortcuts and exploit the system will still be bad players, and those that lord it over other players will just be banned. The ranks would just show who's most likely to know what their doing.
Heres a very basic equation to prevent stat building over teamwork, assuming xp is only given to players if they stay the whole round.
For all players involved:
<b>(XP for Event + (Constant * Number of teammates in area) ) / Number of teammates in area)</b> * (Victems Rank / Your Rank) / <b>(Number of times youve triggered this event + 1)</b>
There you go, a player will only gain so much experience doing one thing. killing higher ranked players will add to your score more than killing lower level players. Teaming up will divide up the xp, but add to the amount divided. And finally, if you try to stat build all game, you'll start getting almost nothing. Someone who squads up, welds their teammates, builds buildings, and kills threats will get more xp than someone who just tries for frags, since they did a large variety of team based actions.