Official Proposal by Supreme Ruler Bacon:

factoid · Post by **factoid** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:09 pm

Orion wrote:QUOTE (Orion @ Nov 5 2006, 06:31 PM) What good is a 'Pook can do no wrong' mentality if Pook admits Pook can do wrong, and apologizes for it?

Well, in that particular case, I was kind of disapointed in him. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> Likewise with resetting the stats back so quickly. No one seems to notice or care that he's not just doing this stuff premptively or randomly.

apochboi · Post by **apochboi** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:14 pm

Id like to you know where the senate is in all of this. What do the senate do. Also who was nominated for SAL ?

Post by **Pook** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:20 pm

apochboi wrote:QUOTE (apochboi @ Nov 6 2006, 08:14 AM) Id like to you know ... What do the senate do.

Please stop posting while intoxicated.

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:32 pm

MrChaos <--- wonders if this was a general request and if Pook has thought through this request vis a vis post counts FTW strategists and alcohol fueled angst removal 2.1 users?

[ no Apochis were meant to be harmed in this posting ]

apochboi · Post by **apochboi** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:48 pm

Id be worried if i were drunk at 3:48pm in the afternoon while just home from work. Do not make assumptions.

Post by **Pook** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:50 pm

Actually if you were drunk you'd most likely be worry-free. It's one of the effects of intoxication... along with the inability to form a coherent sentence.

emene86 · Post by **emene86** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:52 pm

Correct me if I am wrong guys, but it seems to me that if we keep the current ELO system and employ team balancing then we end up in a condition where win loss ratio nears 50/50 (beacuse teams will be fairly balanced), meaning that everyone's rating will slowly even out (except for newcomers).

Our rating system is not as bad as people claim, and no rating system we can use will be truly perfect. But we can still try to improve it (and hopefully with little arguing)

I think it is good that Pook is giving new systems a try because it is only by example that people will truly know how a certain proposed system will work(and reduce the amount of complaining)

I propose you give points a try. Points earned individually in a game, subtracted by game point average and factored by amount of time played would be added to your rating. That way your elo would mirror your average standing in the games.

Perhaps you may have tried it before, (I don't know as I am new to the game), or perhaps it still won't account for naning or probing, but I think it's a good first step. (it will account for base kills, assists and scouting)

Tell me what you think.

Greator_SST · Post by **Greator_SST** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:52 pm

...gee, what am I missing. Now that ELO is displaying total team ranks, games that are even in terms of points are almost a toss-up, games that are stacked are blowouts. What a surprise, huh? I thought ELO was broken.

So I'm actually curious what it is you all are really complaining about? That you're not on the leaderboard? That you're not getting points for nanning or probing? That you want to be rewarded for being in the PROXIMITY of a base that is blown up?

Get a life. Who give two crappers about ELO. Just pretend it's like gravity, it exists and complaining that it unfairly penalizes fat people doesn't change anything. There's nothing you can do about it. Except for this novel concept. PLAY THE GAME.

General_Freak · Post by **General_Freak** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:53 pm

Pook wrote:QUOTE (Pook @ Nov 5 2006, 09:26 PM) They don't get a free 15 after 3 months.

They start at 1500 ELO, and have a rank adjustment of -15, giving them a rank of 0.

Each week, their rank adjustment increases by 1 until it's at 0, 15 weeks later. During that 15 weeks, they've been playing and their ELO has already started to converge towards it's proper value.

For an example of this, how it works, and proof that it is indeed working:
http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...ost&p=40132

But won't the rank adjustment increase by 1 each week regardless of whether they play or not? You're assuming they are playing, but if they're not, they can get to (15) by not doing anything for 15 weeks. That's how I got my vet 1 rank after I stopped playing some time in 2005.

Post by **Pook** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:57 pm

If you're saying the problem is that someone's going to create an account, walk away and wait for 3 months, in an effort to exploit the system... that's a little silly and in fact pretty darn stupid. (For them to do, not for you to say it)

A person who does this:

- Isn't as good as their rank indicates. This means they take more abuse for their mistakes.
- Gets no protection from booting. You screw up while you're still learning? Too bad.
- Unable to play on newbie servers. This is where newbies learn the basics of flight and the controls.

If you want to try and skip all that you can, but you're really doing yourself a giant disservice, all for a rank that will most likely PLUMMET because you're playing out of your league.

Could this be changed? Sure - I could base the modifier on the total number of hours played, or on kills even. The more you whore the faster you lose the adjuster. Do I think it's necessary - not really. The rank adjustment isn't for the public - it's for protection of the person who's learning the game.

The only one you're cheating is yourself.