I know there were similar threads. But I am not talking about the system we had. I mean a reliable system that takes much more than score/kill into account. Yeah, I know this is a really major suggestion and 99.99% won't be implemented for foreseeable reasons. (Too much trouble..etc But the system can be developed/fixed gradually, you don't have to make it perfect in the beginning. A problem found, gather ideas and solve it. Some (more) discussion should be great anyway. I've been playing several games that have ELO or similar ranking system. Despite the hardwork behind it, having ELO system around may have the advantages as follow: 1: easier to solve stack, for both manual/automatic methods. 2: A properly designed ELO threshold should effectively keep new players away from what we don't want them to be doing. 3: New players might stay for a longer while, since it's a fancy feature. Some reasons for older players to stick around too. ...more but I can't come up with all of them in a sudden. Pretty much everything listed in JustGoFly's thread can be solved by ELO too. Most of the disadvantages can be eliminated through a proper design. Of course, building a proper ELO system is a pain. A point is to keep the exact calculation formula as confidential. I am listing some factors that might serve as good reference for ELO calculation The calculation would begin after the round is finished. (1)score This should be a minor factor, for obvious reasons. sub-factors: (1-1)The difference between[Personal score divided by the time you actually participated in the round] and ["team" average score divided by round time]. (1-2)Personal ELO difference with "server" average ELO. (1-3)The source of your score. (Defusing 2 mines doesn't seem to be as good as destroying a barrack, right?) (2)kill/death Also a minor factor, but slightlymore important than score. (2-1)ELO difference between Killer&Victim. (2-2)Separately, killer&Victim was in combat vehicle or not. (2-3)The weapon used to kill. (3)Your team won/lost. (Major factor, excluded in initial calculation.) (3-1)Difference of average ELO of both team. These are just some basic ideas. The ELO you gain/lose in one game should be the summation of the above factors, and plus multiplying the (3) with time ratio you spend on both teams divided by the round time. Example: Excluding (3), which might be "winning ELO+3, losing ELO-3", I have +4 ELO by other factors. The game lasted for 45 minutes, I played on winning team for 5 minutes, losing team for 25 minutes, the ELO I gained should be 4+[(-3*25+3*5)/30*(30/45)]=2.4 If the above factors are coded well. The following is what should happen. Spamming heal ==>250 scores total (good factor) ==> score is a minor factor (bad factor) ==> Generally if you know this trick, your ELO should be higher than server average already (bad factor) ==> You boosted your team's average score a lot (bad factor) ==>Your team most likely would lose with 2 good players not helping(bad factor) ==>Low ELO gain in the end, who the hell's gonna do this? This took me less than one hour to finish so I didn't really put much brain in this, just some basic ideas.
Honestly If I could pick a system, win/loss system. 50 wins 20 losses players is obviously good. DONT GIVE ME SHIT ABOUT EXCEPTIONS.
I don't think that an ELO ranking would be necessary, because the empires community is small enough such that we would already be able to tell good players from bad players anyways. And win loss ratio doesn't account for potential stacks, which is problematic.
It does account for stack. Stackers get high ratings but when we use the system to balance stackers with high ratings who maybe are bad players get put in a team based on their ratings, so he will weaken his team by being fake good and thus start to lose games.
If you mean it as a viewable ranking going from 1 to x places, with nicks and other stuff shown, then I am wholehearthly against it. I remember when epic made their fancy ranking. I think you remember that it lead to massive faggotry among the players, who just wanted to stroke their tiny digital dicks. Now,my personal despise towards ranks aside, I still do not like that. I can see that work for newcomers, who generally don't mind which team they end up with, but I see it as a major pain in the ass, for people such as myself, who prefer the underdog nf. This was grinded to the core in several threads, but I still think that the argument, that forcing players to teams which have diffrent quirks is a bad idea, still stands.
I remember how horrible that was but I loved one thing about it. The player profiles. It showed your favourite weapon, map, which team you play the most and even where you points come from(commander stuff, vehicle killing, player killing etc. It was really nice to be able to check all that.
Stats were nice, rankings weren't. It was back on the old G4TC servers when we had empstats using hlstatsX. Keef made a good system but it never got worked out, which was a real shame. We ran it briefly in 2.1 and it was fairly nice. Security has covered a lot of bases there, but I disagree entirely with what Paradox says. Some of the better players (i.e. people who aren't you Paradox) make a point of joining losing teams, just for that 1/10 chance they can turn it around. Why penalise them?
Those players would be put on the weaker team anyway. Also there's no reason to disable mid-match switches, it'd take a pretty concerted effort to stack two full teams after they've been scrambled.
Reward people for winning a fucking lot? You want to make players stack more than ever? Also kill/death ratio won't solve this either. Only thing you should rate players by is kills, buildings complete, revives, etc. (things which help the team). Of course kills should count less since they happen very often (except vehicle kills which should add more points if there's more people inside the vehicle i.e. APC Rush) but other things such as completing buildings (different buildings, different value) should reward you more. All of this was probably mentioned by Security though.
dawg you use the system to balance too so bitches get high rating if they win a lot, but if they suck and stack they'll be put on the worse team but his fake high ratingshould help^but since it's fake it doesnt and he gets losses it all balanced it out.
if you care about your stats join the team from the start instead of sitting in spec 50 fucking hours long before joining. Also my problem solves sitting in spec waiting too. Kind of.
What's the point of having a rank if it doesnt effect anything? I thought this elo ranking would be used to balance teams, or is it just to have ranks to get bigger e penisses? And reznov are you seriously sad about punishing stackers?
Actually a good ranking system will do both, and should be intended to do both. If people want to get bigger e penis, they'll play more, that way we might be able to save Empires a bit, right? Again, if the system is designed properly, we don't have to worry about these people doing shitty stuff to get bigger penis, because it's hard to boost your rank if you don't play it properly.
You fucking moron, I meant that your method does not display a players skill at all, it only serves to punish stackers. I was talking about a system that does both. Win/Death does not solve this at all. You and me know I fucking hate stackers.
