Change the uninstaller.cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Jul 21 2010, 12:13 AM) How do you suppose we gather this data?
"Hi, we see you played for a week and then disappeared for the next three months. Mind telling us why?"
We should not let...
OTDT_Hunter wrote:QUOTE (OTDT_Hunter @ Jul 21 2010, 06:09 AM) I think the hardest fix is the time between games. I think the biggest reason there is such a long delay between games is because during games it can get mentally exhausting after a game is over. Maybe not the 30 or less min games. The games that are 1 hour + are defintly draining. So after the game is over and you still want to play. More then likely you need atleast a 10 min break just to try another game. Maybe this is just for me.
I think the reason it is easier for most other games to start up so fast. Games don't last nearly as long as a game as ours does. BFBC2 round last 10-20 mins thne game starts over. Not nearly mentally draining as allegiance. If I played one round of BFBC2 for a hour of constant play I would need to take a break for sure. Most MMOs you play till you get what you need then quit/take a break. This is where the type of game allegiance is makes it only for the people who really love it to stay for the long haul.
Hmm.
NotJarvis' wacky idea #1363
Maybe we should start tuning cores to produce shorter games then?
A number of nerfs have been made to stop "unstoppable end game tech" over the time I've been in Alleg, often without thinking about how removing/nerfing them will make games last longer.
Maybe we should buff Mid Game tech so you have a chance of winning in the mid-game with a good bomb run. Maybe we should make some end-game tech's easier to get.Maybe Drizzo's balancing ideas had merit
My impression is that games have actually got longer in the last year or two (I might be wrong and it might just be my ageing memory failing me)
I would love to see if the statistics on average game length over a long time show an increase or stability to be honest.
As a relatively new player I would like to offer my opinion on ranks from the viewpoint of a newbie:
Ranks are in way the only measurable success you can achieve during your first games. A newb knows nothing about the leaderboard and can't hope to build good reputation (which is hard to measure anyway), so the only solid sense of achievement between games is your rank. And for this the rank is totally unsuited.
I think we can all agree that the lower ranks (below 5) have a different meaning than the higher ranks (above 8).
And that a rank for someone with less than say 100 games played has a different meaning than for someone with more than 500 games played. For the first games your rank show how lucky you are when choosing teams or how well you stack.
My suggestion: Change rank below 5 so it depends not on wins or losses but entirely on games played. 10 games per point of rank or so. Or 10 wins or 20 loses per point. This would prevent newbs from becoming 8 too early (from luck with stack) and those staying 2 from bad luck and becoming frustrated. Start the normal ranking system when the new player has played 50 (or insert better number here) games.
I am aware that there was a similar system in use when I started. You jumped to rank 5 after a certain time played (or something similar). I do not know why it is no longer used, please provide a link and I will read and perhaps find out for myself why my idea is stupid.
I know that this means a code change, and I am not sure the benefit is big enough to justify this change. But I think it might help a little bit.
Another suggestion: Display average rank of a team. This would help deciding which side to join to avoid stack. You could even enforce that a player can only the team with the team rating farest away from his own to fight stacking.
Ranks are in way the only measurable success you can achieve during your first games. A newb knows nothing about the leaderboard and can't hope to build good reputation (which is hard to measure anyway), so the only solid sense of achievement between games is your rank. And for this the rank is totally unsuited.
I think we can all agree that the lower ranks (below 5) have a different meaning than the higher ranks (above 8).
And that a rank for someone with less than say 100 games played has a different meaning than for someone with more than 500 games played. For the first games your rank show how lucky you are when choosing teams or how well you stack.
My suggestion: Change rank below 5 so it depends not on wins or losses but entirely on games played. 10 games per point of rank or so. Or 10 wins or 20 loses per point. This would prevent newbs from becoming 8 too early (from luck with stack) and those staying 2 from bad luck and becoming frustrated. Start the normal ranking system when the new player has played 50 (or insert better number here) games.
I am aware that there was a similar system in use when I started. You jumped to rank 5 after a certain time played (or something similar). I do not know why it is no longer used, please provide a link and I will read and perhaps find out for myself why my idea is stupid.
I know that this means a code change, and I am not sure the benefit is big enough to justify this change. But I think it might help a little bit.
Another suggestion: Display average rank of a team. This would help deciding which side to join to avoid stack. You could even enforce that a player can only the team with the team rating farest away from his own to fight stacking.
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
Simply Because it led to unbalanced games.Tannar wrote:QUOTE (Tannar @ Jul 21 2010, 10:38 AM) I am aware that there was a similar system in use when I started. You jumped to rank 5 after a certain time played (or something similar). I do not know why it is no longer used, please provide a link and I will read and perhaps find out for myself why my idea is stupid.
It took only a few hours in game to be bumped up to Rank 5.
No one would suggest that two rank 5 players with a combined total of 40 hours in game will be worth the same as (say) SaiSoma who is a Rank 10. Yet with the rank boost teams were launching with 2 or more new players who barely knew the basics representing a large chunk of the teams "Skill score".
The only aim of our current ranking system is to produce balanced games, as (the theory goes) balanced games are more fun for the majority (and they are).
Allegskill is vastly superior to the previous System (Helo) In my opinion.
Hmm. Improving the way Team Skill was calculated/shown was something Sgt Baker proposed IIRC. It would be interesting if we could restart this work or look at it again, as I believe that would be a good idea. Improvements to AB along with this may also be good (so it is actually used a bit more)Tannar wrote:QUOTE (Tannar @ Jul 21 2010, 10:38 AM) Another suggestion: Display average rank of a team. This would help deciding which side to join to avoid stack. You could even enforce that a player can only the team with the team rating farest away from his own to fight stacking.
Last edited by notjarvis on Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Here's another idea that might work. Make it so they get the rank of 5 easily, but just playing. I don't know how long would be good, but during this period of time, the game just records their stats. Then when they hit 5, they will gain ranks the normal way. I think a rank 5 would have stayed around long enough to know the ins and outs.
PS. This doesn't solve the newbie problem, it just solves an issue with newbs being stuck at rank 2. BTW! When they ask how to gain rank, you can tell em to just play! And they'll see this lolz.
PS. This doesn't solve the newbie problem, it just solves an issue with newbs being stuck at rank 2. BTW! When they ask how to gain rank, you can tell em to just play! And they'll see this lolz.
A hero is not one who never falls, but one who gets up again and again, NEVER losing sight of one's dream!
No, don't bring this back. Bumping people to rank (5) is not productive. It leads to a situation, where people, who learn the game quickly will be a (5) only for some days, while the ones, who need more time and actually have a lower Allegskill rank when they get bumped will stay (5)s forever. This leads to (5) being equivalent to "you suck ass, your rank is inflated and because of that I don't want you on my team". So the noobs get some candy in their first days of play just for getting the bill, once they get bumped to (5). No good idea.
Also there is a lot to achieve for the new guys. There just isn't some stupid technical regulation like: You can use mini 2 when you are (5) and mini 3 gets available when reaching rank (10), like in many other online games. Still you need to convince the team to trust in you, before you can play several roles. Isn't it enough of an award for improving, when you get to drive a bomber the first time and the whole team is following you in nans supporting you, so everyone gets to see your nickname in big red letters all accross the screen?
Also there is a lot to achieve for the new guys. There just isn't some stupid technical regulation like: You can use mini 2 when you are (5) and mini 3 gets available when reaching rank (10), like in many other online games. Still you need to convince the team to trust in you, before you can play several roles. Isn't it enough of an award for improving, when you get to drive a bomber the first time and the whole team is following you in nans supporting you, so everyone gets to see your nickname in big red letters all accross the screen?
Here is what i think we should do:
Only have people below the rank of 5, have a rank actually. Once they reach the rank of 5, their rank disappears completely.
Most of you will probably be against this, but this is just in my opinion
Only have people below the rank of 5, have a rank actually. Once they reach the rank of 5, their rank disappears completely.
Most of you will probably be against this, but this is just in my opinion
ryjamsan wrote:QUOTE (ryjamsan @ Mar 1 2011, 07:07 PM) Spidey let it go, I have reformed MW and taken him under my wing:)
phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Nov 16 2014, 05:12 PM) I'll make sure to never make you a commander again
Archer14 wrote:QUOTE (Archer14 @ Jul 21 2010, 11:34 AM) Here is what i think we should do:
Only have people below the rank of 5, have a rank actually. Once they reach the rank of 5, their rank disappears completely.
Most of you will probably be against this, but this is just in my opinion
Eh?
How would you ever get a balanced game?
Unless you are proposing we Remove visible ranks and enforce AB (in which case AB needs fixing).
Last edited by notjarvis on Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
