Official Proposal by Supreme Ruler Bacon:

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:06 am

$#@!ing awesome pook. Stickie this thread!! /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" /> /ninja.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":ninja:" border="0" alt="ninja.gif" />

apochboi · Post by **apochboi** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:55 am

Hmmm why this

Morning · Post by **Morning** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:34 am

Ahh, Texas.... Where no zombies ever come, because the wall of lead stops them every time they come within 400 yards.

tmc · Post by **tmc** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:18 am

Here's my take on ELO

Why the $#@! is it public? If ELO were completely private (no leaderboard either; the only way youd know it exists is through the autobalance button), then there would be no more stacking or bitching.

ELO ranks being public serves only 1 purpose: making sure that ELO might work. ie, with ELO ranks public, if we see culmi running around with an (8), then we can quickly throw ELO out the window. But we could just as well do this with ELO private, and maybe tiger keeping an eye on his personal private leaderboard to make sure that ELO seems relatively good.

If people cant see their elo, they wont bitch or stack (or at least, wont stack more than if there werent any stats).

ELO is not a stats system, its a balance system. There is no reason to make it public.

If we want stats, we should make them based on the game's stats. This is not what ELO is, nor is it what it should be.

Post by **Pook** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:20 am

I can see your point TMC... but if we're going to be able to watch the ranks converge and watch the balancing button split everyone up, we'll have to leave it public at least for the near future.

BootHappy · Post by **BootHappy** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:37 am

Pook's idea was good, but it wasn't quite right. Ranks should be based on MINER kills. /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

javaswiller · Post by **javaswiller** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:40 am

Pook wrote:QUOTE (Pook @ Nov 4 2006, 08:05 PM) It's a long standing debate.

My personal opinion is that our community will never be able to successfully implement an individual-based scoring sytstem.

The reason: Everyone has a different idea of what's important and what actions are worth to gameplay.

Just list the stats ... all of them ... kills, ejects, wins, losses, points. Hours played. Kills per game. Whatever. Just don't rank anyone. It's all subjective anyway. Turn the top 100 into the top 10,000.

What's it really going to hurt? They're just numbers.

Post by **Tigereye** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:56 am

javaswiller wrote:QUOTE (javaswiller @ Nov 4 2006, 11:40 PM) Turn the top 100 into the top 10,000.

What's it really going to hurt? They're just numbers.

...the database server and its bandwidth will hurt from the increased load /doh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":doh:" border="0" alt="doh.gif" />

--TE

Gstar · Post by **Gstar** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:07 am

One option would be to make the ranking system so incredibly complicated that no one person could possibly understand it.

That way no one can argue with it. /unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":unsure:" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" />

Post by **Pook** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:16 am

Gstar wrote:QUOTE (Gstar @ Nov 4 2006, 11:07 PM) One option would be to make the ranking system so incredibly complicated that no one person could possibly understand it.

That way no one can argue with it. /unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":unsure:" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" />

Darnit you mean I'm not there yet?

Back to the drawing board.