Press "source 1&2" in my signature. NOT MENTIONING ME EH? You INSTANTLY went after me with ur first and second comment about the matter.
Not in relation to any kind of punishment, and pickled mentioned you first. For those who don't know, the zecon drama started about half an hour ago when I got a message from Trickster: Recon, Zeke wants to know how you're going to punish rifle whores? I said: I'll think of something creative Trickster says: Zeke wants to know what creative means? I said: Tell him to figure it out. I didn't really think he'd take it seriously (I never even said I was doing anything about rifle whores, nor did I intend to do anything beyond a couple of dope slaps)... I guess I need to be more explicit with /sarcasm tags or something.
This shit aint ever going to work. Let admins balance matches until it gets popular enough that people don't know who's skilled or not.
Okay seriously if you think that by seeing a few numbers in the opening two days of testing a brand new plugin you can conclude anything, you're a fool. That's directed towards no one in particular, yet anyone who is blindly ruling out the fact that this is indeed alpha AND potentially buggy. Do I believe Zeke should have lost 200 points in a game of district? Maybe if he threw the game because none of the ratings are established yet. With the exception of a few rating whores, almost everyone is between 175 and 275. So if he inflated his rating to 400 then got back into 200's it makes sense. Once his opponents have "realistic" ratings he wouldn't have fallen to 200's that fast. Also a huge part of the ratings involve balance so we'll only get an idea of how it works as a balancer by letting it balance games. I don't suggest that until all bugs are known to be worked out, and a few anti-whoring functions thrown in there. I won't go in to details because by page 15 of the third thread regarding this balancer I believe it's almost just trolls left.
let them pointwhore - it will only result in loss after loss, because we who dont give a shit will have "normal" rankings and can (will be forced to) counterstack those guys. they will end up with a series of shitty games ... if they just stand around for a couple of rounds, or intentionally run into the enemy to get killed (or kill themselfs over and over) im just gonna ban them for griefing (in the refusing to play serious meaning - it worked for lolforting, it will for this). simple as that ...
I wish I could believe that. From the pov of someone who doesn't care for ranking and thinks it's a waste of time, and especially in Empires it would probably fail because there's too many variables. Let me tell you, as someone who's pretty dedicated to fair gaming, I rarely get to choose my team unless i'm one of the first in, because there is, 80% of the time, a stacked team and an unstacked team. Now maybe you have the leisure, despite being so obviously godlike that you'd unbalance any side you were on, to choose your team. I, shit as I am, do not. Pretty much in the same way I have to be engineer 70% of the time because people don't build things, and grenadier 30% of the time because people don't go it. The rifleman class doesn't exist for me except for 2 things - sticky grenades and to shoot me to shit. The scout class exists for me to find enemy scouts. I don't know why you guys rant so much, i've got a lot more to rant about.
People whoring points doesn't mean they will lose. These people are actually really good at the game. Getting 200 kills in an apc actually helps a team and frustrates the enemy to the point of rage specing..
I don't believe so. I think pickled is overhyping the problem of pointwhoring. If you inflate your score to something like 500, but the average player is around 150-250, then you will be at a 2:1 or 3:1 disadvantage the next round. There will be a limit to how high this disadvantage can go to before you will simply lose because the enemy has too many players. The balancer is essentially self-correcting and eventually you will lose enough to bring your score back towards the average player.
saw the video after making my post... didn't realise you'd finished the system! looks great by the way
there's a metric ton of forum users that never play but talk constantly about how everyone should play and what needs to be changed in the next version of empires.
He's an oldskool, 2006 player. He doesn't play much because of school or uni or whatever these days. But yeah, he's probably played more than either of you in total. Not current versions though.
that means absolutely nothing to me. and btw, i have one of the highest recorded playtimes of all time, if we're getting into this discussion again.
Ok, lets have admins punishing people for sucking on purpose so the system doesn't fail. How about the admins just punish people for stacking and forget this complicated ranking stuff? People with alt accounts or who haven't played for a long time will still make games unbalanced. And for the skilled people who have to play 6 vs 12 games or whatever just cause they are good will probably only make them not play. It's like your gambling on the fact that everyone will join right away and not go spec if teams seems stacked as far as numbers or skill. Like 6v12 but half of those 12 people see skilled people on the other team and go spec because they are intimidated. It would also seem kinda of buggy picking the team with less people and joining the one with more. Or if you put a lot of skilled rifleman on the same but none of them know how to command. You basically screw them over. steam community pages. I dunno when it offically started counting tho. And on server pages that have like stats n stuff. edit: also sandbag has been around for along time and has two accounts on here. The one he doesn't even use any more "private sandbag" has the most posts of anyone on this forum.
I thought the steam community page only told you your playing time for all source mods and not Empires specifically? Also, isn't it just the weekly playing time rather than cummulative?
