Free Allegiance Forums

Ok. So after my very flawed idea about giving people KB for nanning I have come up with a new idea, which I hope is slightly more sensible in the eyes of the rest of you ... so here goes.

Why don't we rank players based on the points which they are given and are displayed at the end of game stats view. Points are already given for pickups and the discovery of alephs. So cannot points also be given for negative damage, and points could theoretically be given when a probes discovers an enemy bomber (though this idea is a bit dodgier)

Set points could be given for all of the above, and when included with kills etc. It could make for a good ranking system.

Points can be added or subtracted for won or lost games (the amount vaires on the state of the stack etc), this allows players on the losing team who nan and probe and play support roles constantly, to still raise their rank, or at least to minimise their loss comparatively.

The only issue would be what amount of points to allocate for a certain task.

(As you can see I haven't thought very much about this, but the idea just came into my head and I thought it was so awesome I just had to write it down somewhere. So why not here? /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />)

Critiscism is welcome (wait ... you were gonna critiscise anyway /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />)

Oh god...

Caddy, balancing points would be hard enough in itself (a probe is worth how many kills?) but the problem is that it's very hard to get a computer to distinguish between useful probing and probe spam which serves no purpose.

By abstracting out to wins vs losses you take a more general picture which is less open to abuse/confusion. (eg. If you usefully probe then your team will win more often, you don't need to know how you were usefully probing).

It would still give stackers less points comparatively.

Old idea.

Find most arguments for and against can be found here

I actually thought of the idea ages ago and put it in my topic Why (H)ELO is Poop in rants forum but it appears to be dissappeared

SHENNANIGANS!!!!

Edit: It appears in that thread it doesnt really say too much on the ideas of a points based system. I wonder what happened to my thread...

Edit 2: Well im trying to remember most of the pros and cons that were thought of in the thread.

Pros:
Hopefully better ranking (thus leading to better matches as autobalance would actually work)Points for being a good player not just being a stackerRewards a great player far more than just a good player thus great player gets the nice worthy high rankDoing nothing while on a stacked team wont reward you thus you wont get some players with inflated ranks from stackageIdea founded and endorsed by HSharp (me /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" /> )

Cons:
Can allow whores to overinflate thier ranking by just erm...whoringCant accuratley allocate points for certain actions e.g. a noob can just probe whore just the outside of a base the whole match and get lots of points whereas a vet can place a clever probes which eye enemy miners and cons and bomber runs but not get points for a good probeCan't give points for nanning (although madp did make some formula which would be able to tell you how much a person has nanned I believe)Pook says "no"

Abolish ranks all together.

It only takes about 5 minutes to figure out if someone sucks or if they're the @#(! anyway.

Drizzo wrote:QUOTE (Drizzo @ Sep 8 2007, 07:39 PM) Abolish ranks all together.

It only takes about 5 minutes to figure out if someone sucks or if they're the @#(! anyway.

yeah replace ranks with a rating system like some forums have.

Each player can give a rate to other players (0 to 5 stars for instance).

Everyone see the average rate of everyone but you can also always see and change the rates you gave.

We could even have more than 1 rate per player. Such a commading rate , a 'can listen' rate , 'can probe' rate, can "fly bomber" grade, can 'whore' grade, etc.

Bottom line: when the system cant do it, do it youself. /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

Ok, I'm going to go through this point at a time, I'm not flaming just trying to explain my position,

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Sep 8 2007, 05:23 PM) [*]Hopefully better ranking (thus leading to better matches as autobalance would actually work)

Unfortunately, as you seem to agree, this wouldn't lead to more accurate ranks due to the problems you list below. Also don't forget that currently AB doesn't work properly anyway so it's very hard to judge what a HELO balanced game would be like.

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Sep 8 2007, 05:23 PM) [*]Points for being a good player not just being a stacker

A mediocre player will have far more points available to him under your system. Join stack, whore for 2 hours, get lots of points, repeat. As long as you have a complicit commander (and there are plenty of coms willing to prolong a game just to whore) you'll be able to build up far more points no matter how they are divied up.

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Sep 8 2007, 05:23 PM) [*]Rewards a great player far more than just a good player thus great player gets the nice worthy high rank

Not really. A great player is more often of game winning benefit to their team than a good player. Win/loss systems will pick this up. Points systems not necessarily so due to the point inflation available by whoring a team with much better tech.

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Sep 8 2007, 05:23 PM) [*]Doing nothing while on a stacked team wont reward you thus you wont get some players with inflated ranks from stackage

Doing nothing on a stacked team isn't likely to benefit you in the long run in a win/loss system either. You'll either get booted or you'll cause your team to lose even games due to your inactivity. I don't see that any stacking players do nothing anyway. I'm sure they'd be perfectly capable of taking a heavy int and whoring basic scouts (a situation more likely to occur in a points ranking environment).

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Sep 8 2007, 05:23 PM) [*]Idea founded and endorsed by HSharp (me /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" /> )

No comment /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Cons:

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Sep 8 2007, 05:23 PM) [*]Can allow whores to overinflate thier ranking by just erm...whoring

Oh yes. And may well be detrimental to overall gameplay as it would encourage whoring over winning.

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Sep 8 2007, 05:23 PM) [*]Cant accuratley allocate points for certain actions e.g. a noob can just probe whore just the outside of a base the whole match and get lots of points whereas a vet can place a clever probes which eye enemy miners and cons and bomber runs but not get points for a good probe

Not certain actions, all actions. There is nothing in Alleg that can be divorced from context. Killing a random probe scout vs killing a vital nan. Spamming probes vs dropping probes by rocks to find miners.

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Sep 8 2007, 05:23 PM) [*]Can't give points for nanning (although madp did make some formula which would be able to tell you how much a person has nanned I believe)

Even if you can give points for nanning how much are they worth? More than dogfighting? Less?

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Sep 8 2007, 05:23 PM) [*]Pook says "no"

Pook is no longer running HELO or whatever so not such an issue.

Now I don't support HELO because a quick glance at how it works is enough for me to see that it's mathematically unsound for producing ranks for a balancing system (for a ranks for fun system it's fine because people continue to advance over time which is good to have, just useless for balancing purposes). However in the win/loss vs points system debate there is only one sound option if you want to use it to produce balanced games.

What may be best is a points system for visible ranks as people seem to like them (with a definite emphasis on other skills over kills to avoid whoring games) with an accurate, but hidden, win/loss system used for AB. Points could be a lot of fun and people like to have stats in general (kills per game and so on) so this may be the best of both worlds.

On the issue of ranks...

Who cares?

Ranks are only an issue if people let them be.

Therefor...be like me and just ignore ranks

Isn't it amazing that people are finally realizing that regular stats are, and were always better then some ELO/HELO junk?

Have we had enough of retard stats that you all are ready to use the normal system? Maybe we could even add a few things to help the scout whores out there, though it's their fault that we have retard stats in the first place.

/rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roll:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />

Speaking of in game points, the points given for spotting tech rocks, He rocks, and sectors need to be increased, on a grand scale of 2-4 times the amount. This will still be much less then a true whore would receive, though would mitigate things. In the same vein, perhaps if it were possible, reduce the points for kills (and possibly assists) while in a turret to half what currently it is.

/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />