Spidey's Command List
Assuming someone could do it without personal biases attached (meaning you just don't like that person), the only problem I would have with this sort of system is that the person/group doing the ranking might place a different value on different in-game functions than what another person might. For instance, I love a good scout whore on my teams. I don't care if they only get 1 kill and have 10 ejects so long as they give me good map visibility. I'd rather have that person than I would someone who sits in base a good portion of the game and picks off newbie scouts that enter your sector getting 10 kills per game and 1 eject. So in order to get a good assesment I think you would need to have different categories of pilots by skillset.
What Allegiance needs is a little more cowbell. 
You could create a system where everyone is allowed to rank everyone else's skill, and everyone can rank that person's evaluation ability. Then build ranks of off the community's rank and meta-ranks. But personally, I'd rather just have something automated that finds patterns in the data that we deem accurate.
"I make it a point not to chat with AP off... space is vast, but it's never vast enough for my scout."
I can remember, that we had such a page...factoid wrote:QUOTE (factoid @ Dec 17 2007, 04:38 PM) You could create a system where everyone is allowed to rank everyone else's skill, and everyone can rank that person's evaluation ability. Then build ranks of off the community's rank and meta-ranks. But personally, I'd rather just have something automated that finds patterns in the data that we deem accurate.
It was a form:
Random player vs random player
You had to choose which one is better.
The Escapist (Justin Emerson) @ Dec 21 2010, 02:33 PM:
The history of open-source Allegiance is paved with the bodies of dead code branches, forum flame wars, and personal vendettas. But a community remains because people still love the game.
Because the code was not well written... /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />mcwarren4 wrote:QUOTE (mcwarren4 @ Dec 17 2007, 07:12 PM) Yeah that ranking system was AWESOME! /rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roll:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" /> It had madpeople ranked #1
The Escapist (Justin Emerson) @ Dec 21 2010, 02:33 PM:
The history of open-source Allegiance is paved with the bodies of dead code branches, forum flame wars, and personal vendettas. But a community remains because people still love the game.
It could very easily be done. You could have 1 person from each active squad (sorry @BS) submit one or two people to the council and you would have an equal number of merc persons are their are active squads.factoid wrote:QUOTE (factoid @ Dec 17 2007, 03:09 PM) But the important thing that form would have been missing was a "who ranks the rankers" aspect. Otherwise it's far to easy to circumvent the system.
Theres no need to give even different ranking sub categories because people know someones value. Let's use for example WyldKarnoob. He is not an int whore by any measure but I know his value in scout whoring while probing and de-probing and nanning. Thus I will give him a high value and I'm sure others will as well. Let's take someone like say Defiance who mostly just proxes useless alephs and doesn't do too many team oriented activities and often sits in spase spamming for a corv so she can prox more. Is Defiance good? Sure. Is she as good for teh team as Wyld? I don't think so and my ranking would reflect that accordingly.
With such a system a truly accurate system of ranking could be developed - ranked by your knowledgeable peers instead of unthinking machinery.
I'm sorry I don't remember any of it. For you the day spideycw graced your squad with utter destruction was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Sunday
Idanmel wrote:QUOTE (Idanmel @ Mar 19 2012, 05:54 AM) I am ashamed for all the drama I caused, I have much to learn on how to behave when things don't go my way.
My apologies.
Yeah, that's what I said. But I'm saying don't limit it to a select few rankers. Allow everyone to rank and in turn be ranked on their rankings. That combination of 'rank' and 'karma' across the entire population determines the rank. It means that everyone gets their say, but the community as a whole also gets to decide how much that say is worth.
It's sort of like Slashdot's moderator system. Moderators rate the posts, but the posters get to rate the moderators. Moderators are picked by the system based on their accumulated karma. If people don't like the job you do, your karma drops, so you're less likely to be picked again.
It's sort of like Slashdot's moderator system. Moderators rate the posts, but the posters get to rate the moderators. Moderators are picked by the system based on their accumulated karma. If people don't like the job you do, your karma drops, so you're less likely to be picked again.
"I make it a point not to chat with AP off... space is vast, but it's never vast enough for my scout."