This isn't based on Time. It's based on your performance in a game. This is how you can pass a noob who has more playtime recently, because it will pull the stats of Kills, repairs, revives, etc and put that towards your rank.
yeah i extended it, points say shit all either. not in a game where its all about killing a single target. remove a rax, youve been a million times more valueable than the rifleman killing 20 dudes coming out of it. 1pt vs 20pts.
How does it say shit all? Your argument was literally "But I might play better but someone will be higher ranked because of time".
As we time and time again have proven by discussing the ideal system to judge skill we've come to the conclusion at several different times with several different people that theres no ideal system to judge skill. So why not use a system to approximates it? If the system is right most of the time thats good enough. Statistically someone that has played 5000 hours or someone that has playing 5 hours, or even someone who has played 20 versus a 100 , the person with more hours is going to be better.
at the point you replied i already had edited my previous post to also accommodate for points. since there are so many ideas of how this promise of salvation is implement i wasnt sure.
When talking about XP system or the long term rank. Its more about separating the ones who played long and/or often and those who just installed the game. I dont know why drag skill there. Its more about experience....or how I said "Assumed experience". Of course, everyone inhales experience at different rates... There is so much about this a matter of how it would be all set up, I dont get why think so shallow about it.
I actually highly doubt that, I would take that rifleman over that engineer at any time because the rifleman is keeping the enemy busy all alone. Hes litterally wasting the time of x number of people on their team, whilst if you destroy the rax yes you get more map controle, but no you wouldnt be better off because they might spawn in their main now and pump out vehicles.
ok stop. can we agree on a system i can disagree with? its becoming difficult to answer to all the various things at the same time. no paradox, i admit i was unclear about it, the 20 dudes were meant as dudes in the worth of 20 points. this could also have meant only 1 engi.
my argument still stands that there is no single system possible in empires to determine skill andbalance games equally. Therefor we can only implement an approximation which is good enough
Ill still take the rifleman over anything really. I rather have a tony heko or light on my team, then a good engineer.
and someone with 100h is twice as good as someone with 50h? or let it be 150 and 300h, the difference only grows smaller with more time. id take neoony as engi over all of them. or for that matter security since his favorite class is engi _scnr_
No? It'd be an approximation based on the total points they get in a game. It's suppose to differentiate people who know how the game works and people who are brand new to the game with little idea how it works. It'd play out for like a week and then people would be able to tell who are noobies. It's not a ranking system like Dota or CSGO that says "This person is better", it's an approximation like Call of Duty. Sure you can be 10th prestige and still be shit at the game, but your still 10th prestige. That's like this system, sure you can be rank 20, but you topped the leaderboard and are no longer rank 20 because you leveled up because you scored a shit ton of points.
I dont think anyone said the system would be a linear expansion of rank. neoony as an engineer doesnt stand a chance against light or tony.
@Neoony i remember you being an awesome engi, maybe i mix you up tho ... @Kidpaler and at the same time you want this system which does not depict the individual skill of players - like you say yourself (or do i misunderstand) - alter res income, spawn time and what not on a team. @Paradox so it tops out at a point? like at 100 (or 200 or 300)h you dont have any real progression anymore. sry its not really clear anymore, what did you want to do with the ranking system that concerns gameplay? because again, if its just ranks for the sake of ranks, i have nothign against it, i just dont understand the need for it. also @all. you better thank me for voicing my concerns rather then condemning me for it. its not like i have a say, see me as devils advocate and use my statements to refine your ideas. or do you just want to circlejerk in your echo chamber?
I think rocket league is a great example to this. Levels based on playtime (longtime rank), works at matching players when playing non competitive games. In rocket league, its in general pretty good estimation of someones experience with the game. (unless they hide their rank) YES, there are those who play long and never learn, never advance...or slowly. And NO Iam not saying its perfect at making balanced games. In empires though, you could probably also base it on other things.
It doesn't depict skill, it depicts an APPROXIMATION of skill. This system would not be perfectly accurate, but it'd be damn close. Close enough to punish those who are on a stacked team. Time and points you earn in a match is a pretty good indication of how good you are at the game. However, with that being said, I dont want the games to be decided based on an auto-assigner of this skill.
