More Rank Fun!

SpaceJunk · Post by **SpaceJunk** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:47 pm

Shadow, you totally miss the point.

Massive stacking effect quickly balances itself because vets with newbie ranks will get massive rank increases at start, so they won't be able to keep the low ranks for long.

I think it's good and, even better, simple.

Post by **Tigereye** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:03 pm

ShadowFoxx wrote:QUOTE (ShadowFoxx @ Mar 19 2007, 04:55 AM) The point is this current system is $#@!ed up. If a person who is GOOD gets the rank of a newbie... it's obviously NOT going to lead to even teams in auto balance. It's NOT going to lead in accurate "HELO" readings... so.. therefore why is it even being tried. When I see XT top players with a rank of 7 I question the system. The stack is $#@!ed.... it actually ENCOURAGES stacking. Please... fix this soon ... the game is NOT working this way. Like Idan said.... WHY did my team have a WAY higher ELO showing a Stack... when the other team was actually heavily stacked with experience XT players whom just obliterated my team. This is wrong. It's never been worse. Fix this @#(! or I and many other coms will never com again.

Omg you're right the system sux!!!111! Everyone in XT must be good, and if the system says they have a (7) then it is lying because ALL XT have played 400 games since R3 was released. They must have, their squad has an X in their name!!!

If the system is ignoring how frequently they've been playing, then it must be flawed!
... or... maybe those XT haven't played many recorded games?

Shadow, please don't jump to conclusions. You need to understand the system/conditions which have caused the results you are seeing.
Also, if you will refuse to comm based on your misunderstanding of the system, that's probably a good thing; I usually like it when my commanders understand what goes on around them.

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

--TE

Post by **aem** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:23 pm

Well for a fair and accurate ranking system, everyone should start out at rank 0 or some selected number. The goal is to have ranks become accurate over time (the shorter the better). Ranks should be accelerated during the first so many games a person plays such that after they play X number of games they have some rough estimate of their rating and games after that bring their rating closer to the true value and adjust as the player gets better/worse.

The fact is you can't magically assign a number to everyone and expect ranks to be accurate right away. A good ranking system will accelerate rankings to a respectable estimation in the shortest time possible and mostly stabilize except for adjusting for changes in the players skill levels (may want more recent games to weight more). On the contrary a bad ranking system will allow your rank to climb higher and higher the more you play.

It's not fair to complain that people have newb tags when they should have 30's IF they have not played many games. I for one have a newb tag but I've hardly played R3 (due to insane amounts of college work and R3 not working well at all with my computer).

madpeople · Post by **madpeople** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:58 pm

BlackViper wrote:QUOTE (BlackViper @ Mar 19 2007, 02:15 PM) See Pooks Blog for answers to that.

i did, there is nothing relating to vets on the newbie server (i can see)

the only sentences with newbie in them are

It was basically the slew of "newbie bannations" that pushed me over the edge

The newbie modifier for example - I had to have a way for new players to have a rank of (0) but an ELO of 1500.

Newbies are a different story - since you'll get a rank that reflects your gameplay

I'm going to cancel all newbie server autobans effective immediately.

(the last one doesn't count, its not what i'm asking about)

Post by **BlackViper** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:03 pm

See my reply in his blog. Look under comments to his posts.

Post by **Pook** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:24 pm

BlackViper wrote:QUOTE (BlackViper @ Mar 18 2007, 08:43 AM)If you really have to play on the newbie server, well go for it. /sad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":sad:" border="0" alt="sad.gif" />

But please keep this in mind: You will not be hostile to newbies, harass them, etc. If the complaints start flooding in about whoring on that server, well... /glare.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":glare:" border="0" alt="glare.gif" />

Gandalf2 · Post by **Gandalf2** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:24 pm

It's nice to be able to play on the newbie server (at the moment) and help those who want it, unlike before /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

madpeople · Post by **madpeople** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:04 pm

yeah, i guess we can leave the limit as it is then, see if people abbuse the ability to join the newbie servers then change it if necessary (i was just thinking preemptivly)

Post by **FreeBeer** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:14 pm

FWIW, I've been monitoring the newbie servers and I must say that the community has been well behaved (so far) in this regard. I haven't seen an under-ranked vet taking advantage of the situation yet. Kudos!

hellchip · Post by **hellchip** » Tue May 15, 2007 11:54 am

U do it good Pook.

Dont think that much about people who want changes by the ranking system.
I say the people who are Vets know each other and it is not important which rank they are.
They know how elo is based on and play their way and stacking is always the same problem.

Greetings

Hellchip