<!--quoteo(post=1677036:date=Apr 28 2008, 07:12 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 28 2008, 07:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677036"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wow, that was a lot of text. I'd be won over on a pure win loss ranking system if it wasn't for the fact that it would be horribly inaccurate for matchmaking.
Casual players won't want to play many ranked games so it will be near useless for them. Competitive players won't really need it because they all ready know who they want to play with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you think this ranking system requires any more games to be played than any other ranking system?
If not, then what you say could apply to any game with a ranking: it's useless both for casual and competitive players...which I don't think is the case. If you do, then you're not entirely wrong but might be apprehending a bit too much. The ranking surely needs more sessions played in order to establish any valable skill-status for a player, but no more than <b>most</b> casual players would play. Therefore, matchmaking would only be inaccurate at the lowest levels.
At least I hope the game developers would test out a few scoring systems, including this one, in some kind of beta-phase...because sceptics might then be surprised how well it actually works.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1677037:date=Apr 28 2008, 01:43 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 28 2008, 01:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you think this ranking system requires any more games to be played than any other ranking system?
If not, then what you say could apply to any game with a ranking: it's useless both for casual and competitive players...which I don't think is the case. If you do, then you're not entirely wrong but might be apprehending a bit too much. The ranking surely needs more sessions played in order to establish any valable skill-status for a player, but no more than <b>most</b> casual players would play. Therefore, matchmaking would only be inaccurate at the lowest levels.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry, I should clarify a bit. Because this system penalizes players who leave early(which I agree is necessary for a W:L system), casual players will be less likely to play on ranked servers and fewer casual servers will be ranked. Most of the other ranking systems don't have this problem because as long as you're playing a non-custom game you're in a "ranked" server. <!--quoteo(post=1677037:date=Apr 28 2008, 01:43 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 28 2008, 01:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At least I hope the game developers would test out a few scoring systems, including this one, in some kind of beta-phase...because sceptics might then be surprised how well it actually works.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree wholeheartedly.
<!--quoteo(post=1677037:date=Apr 28 2008, 01:43 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 28 2008, 01:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At least I hope the game developers would test out a few scoring systems, including this one, in some kind of beta-phase...because sceptics might then be surprised how well it actually works.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It will not actually work, as your ranking system has no reliability (i.e. it does not measure what it is supposed to measure.).
This kind of a beat topic, as there are mounds of evidence that show why statistically it will be a failure. Leaderboards are a great thing for tracking statistics for fun. They are a terrible idea for balance.
<!--quoteo(post=1677038:date=Apr 28 2008, 07:51 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 28 2008, 07:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677038"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because this system penalizes players who leave early(which I agree is necessary for a W:L system), casual players will be less likely to play on ranked servers and fewer casual servers will be ranked. Most of the other ranking systems don't have this problem because as long as you're playing a non-custom game you're in a "ranked" server.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But what about other platforms (i.e. RTS's, RPG's, race, etc.), in which you have a ranking system that punishes quitting players as well as loads of casual players playing the (ranked) game? Do you think FPS players are so different from the other type of gamers and so unused to these kind of conditions that casual FPS players would not bear to hold out for a whole session before quitting? At least I don't think that is the case. Suffise to look at how long an average FPS player stays connected to a server...plenty long enough to do complete NS-sessions without interrupting them.
<!--quoteo(post=1677042:date=Apr 28 2008, 02:46 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 28 2008, 02:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677042"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It will not actually work, as your ranking system has no reliability (i.e. it does not measure what it is supposed to measure.).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are going to quote, take the whole sentence please.
<!--quoteo(post=1677053:date=Apr 28 2008, 05:07 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 28 2008, 05:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677053"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pertinacious as you are, I just hope you will hold no major part in any Beta-testing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing Pertinacious about disputing the faulty logic you have. I hope I do beta-test your system because I want to show the developers first hand how broken it is <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1677055:date=Apr 29 2008, 12:11 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 29 2008, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677055"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you are going to quote, take the whole sentence please.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I quote the passages I respond to, nothing more, nothing less, unless it somehow alters the comprehension of my observation.
<!--quoteo(post=1677055:date=Apr 29 2008, 12:11 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 29 2008, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677055"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nothing Pertinacious about disputing the faulty logic you have.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it is, if you are so categorical about a system you have never seen at work. Would it be in any way possible you could be a bit more moderate in your observations, especially when they are subjective?
<!--quoteo(post=1677055:date=Apr 29 2008, 12:11 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 29 2008, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677055"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I hope I do beta-test your system because I want to show the developers first hand how broken it is <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After having said this, how could you possibly pretend you're not prejudicial?
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
The really good thing about this idea is that it is pretty simple to implement, so it would not take much effort to try it out in testing. I'm not confident that it will work well (or at all) since it is assumed that players will care about their ranks. Personally, I wouldn't care about it if the rank did not limit my ability to play somewhere. This ranking idea doesn't really regulate anything, does it?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1677051:date=Apr 28 2008, 04:50 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 28 2008, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677051"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But what about other platforms (i.e. RTS's, RPG's, race, etc.), in which you have a ranking system that punishes quitting players as well as loads of casual players playing the (ranked) game? Do you think FPS players are so different from the other type of gamers and so unused to these kind of conditions that casual FPS players would not bear to hold out for a whole session before quitting?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I do believe FPS players are different from RTS players and RPG players. They're just completely different types of games where you have to spend time building your base/leveling your character before you're ready to compete. The lines have blurred a bit in recent years, but the core style of FPS gameplay which is jump right in the game and shoot things, is still prevalent. <!--quoteo(post=1677051:date=Apr 28 2008, 04:50 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 28 2008, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677051"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At least I don't think that is the case. Suffice to look at how long an average FPS player stays connected to a server...plenty long enough to do complete NS-sessions without interrupting them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, in my observations the "average" casual FPS player does not want to play a very long game. They don't want a time-commitment so much as a time-sink. A casual RPG player wants to see what kind of strange builds be can level his character with. A casual RTS player wants to build his base and try different strats. A casual FPS player wants to shoot virtual monsters ASAP.
Hm. How best to explain to someone who is using their fifth language. English happens to be my first, among many, and therefore comes with an accompanying level of skill. I use English because Latin doesn't really have many words for videogames, and certainly none that are taught in education. Of course, most people would be sufficiently aware that trying to debate cogently in their FIFTH ranked language would be an exercise in futility. Most people. At least it explains the contradictory Babel. I hate to break it to you, but you're not sufficiently capable of explaining your argument in your fifth language. Consider consulting a friend who has it somewhere within their top three, as it'll make your forum experience much richer.
Regardless, let's try again (That's already an opportunity for 2 posts full of 3 word quotes...)
"How are they penalised for teamplay in this ranking system which is supposed to promote teamplay?" "If his team loses, he would lose points for such actions."
WHAT THIS MEANS - You have said that they are not penalised, and then you state that they are penalised for a loss. This is called a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which means that each statement is invalidating the other. Get familiar with this word.
""If you win the match in a higher-ranked game ... you would be getting more points" "I don't follow you? What are you getting a giant killer bonus for?"
WHAT THIS MEANS - You have said that a higher ranked game earns more points, then you state that there is no bonus for playing a higher rank. This is called a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which means that each statement is invalidating the other.
With regards to the W:L statements, you agree that one cannot rank on W:L alone, and then you state that this system is ranked on W:L. This is called a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which means that each statement is invalidating the other.
SupCom - There are numerous ways to cook the books, half of which rely on how the game calculated rank (you still haven't looked at the ELO system, sadly). One of which involves a bit of coordination with your partner. Of course, you'd have to be rank-happy to do them, but there's always someone...
Myth did not require teams. It didn't. Doesn't matter how complex it was, it didn't require players to work in concert. It rewarded those who did, certainly, but it wasn't a requirement to playing the game. NS requires a team. It requires other players. It is not an option for you to try, but a requirement you must observe.
What I quoted from EA, came from EA. If you don't believe it, go to the website. It's in English, but Babelfish should help you there. Now, since EA has one of the larger market shares in FPS games, specifically tactical ones involving commanders (BF2 onwards), I would think that they know more about how ranked and unranked play than someone who played an RTS for a bit and thinks it is the Second Coming. I like EA about as much as anyone else (ha ha ha) but you can't argue with the numbers.
"I hope they make an NS2 where the glory for dropping hives all goes exclusively to you."
I should bloody well hope so, it costs enough res to drop the thing, and gorges get precious little respect as is. Or do you think that dropping a hive is worthless? Maybe you think both, which would be........ a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->!
By the way.... did you just say that people who only play one side will be penalised? So an exceptional Alien player wouldn't be allowed into an exceptional server because he doesn't like Marines? Coupled with your idea that Marines should be penalised for having a bad Comm? Can you not see how patently nonsensical this is??
The ELO rating system may have it's problems, but it's never screwed a chess player over for always wanting to play black. By logical extension, your "system" punishes Marines who don't get HMGs or GLs. Which is ultimately the Comm's responsibility, of course.
What an utterly ridiculous way to rank people. Permagorges lose to early fades (Hives mean nothing, don't you know), early fades lose to endgame fades, pure alien players lose to casual alien players. Bloody hell. A player who plays Marines AND Aliens badly somehow ends up equal to a decent one who sticks to one side. You can't see the problem with that once automatching is involved? Wow.
Why does your system punish teamplayers? Well for one, it hates gorges. For two, it hates people who play one side, but play that side very well. Finally, and for three, if a Marine team follows orders, builds, shoots, HA trains, and their Comm screws up, then you do not punish 5< players for ONE making a mistake that they are impotent to correct. Aliens are different - their capabilities are fundamentally equal. Marines and their Comm are fundamentally different - and you cannot punish the Marines for following the wrong orders.
<b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b>
How many times? How many times? The first two times, you struggled with IF, and on your third attempt you manage to contradict yourself with regards to the use of the word imply. Here's a handy hint - if I think ranking served no point in server balance, I would say it. What I gave you is a logical process. IF it serves no purpose, then there is no need to have it. How can you not understand a fundamental logic statement?
Putting it at a more BASIC level - IF ranking serves no purpose, then there is no point to having it. Is that easier for you to grasp? Now, as a competent adult, I know that the above bolded statement is not a secret inference, but a conditional sentence. You're thinking of something like "Even children as young as 3 years of age can effectively perform simple logical inference tasks", which could infer that anyone who cannot perform them is mentally inferior to a 3 yr old. This would also cause them to be clinically diagnosed as suffering from mental retardation, or having learning difficulties. Of course, that relies on the person being able to understand the language that the simple logical inference task is framed in...
With that said, <b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b>
"you've never even played Myth?"
Not even a shred of evidence to support your claim? Tut tut. I like it when you say that the only part I am right about is also the only part that's even remotely relevant to NS, vis-Ã -vis the pure support player (Comm, permagorge).
If you find NS takes a "relatively long" time, on average the problem is that you're playing it wrongly or badly. That's a common enough problem, it happens quite a lot on the majority of servers. Your argument is flawed, since one may as well say that "NS takes as long to play as the average game of Snakes & Ladders" and try to balance the game accordingly (NS NEEDS MORE LADDERS, WTFBBQ).
You are misrepresenting Firewater, by the way. Just out of respect for a fellow forumer, let me remind you:
"The ranking system in battlefield 2 is just fine and dandy. Want to know why? The system does not attempt to balance teams based on leaderboard ranks."
Is that clear enough? BF2, BF2142, etc, does not ENFORCE BALANCE based on the leaderboard. You must be capable of understanding that "Encouraging Teamplay" is NOT THE SAME THING as "Enforce Balance". Those games encourage you to work togther, and many perks in fact ONLY work with squads - they do not force balanced play. Big world of difference, yes?
For the record, and since you really don't grasp logic, a bicycle is faster than a plane when they both have to travel down a 2ft wide tunnel. In a more conventional example, a plane with a 50 gallon tank of fuel will also fly approx 695 miles, then stop dead. A man on a bicycle can pedal comfortably at 20 mph, and will pass the stranded plane in around three days (8 hours of sleep, dont you know), no doubt waving cordially at the impotent pilot as he cycles past.
You're just not looking at the specifics, which has been a consisten problem throughout. Now, to your lie regarding question dodging -
I've explained several times now, with examples, and I've told you to look at the ELO rating system itself. Considering you're allowing elite pure-alien players to play in the same rank as average all-round players, I'm somewhat surprised you haven't noticed this hole yourself.
When did I say that you said "a player gets points for a loss too". I think you'll find my quote was that wins and losses COUNT for points, which you have said numerous times. Do you remember? When you're penalising people for a loss? Or are you going to retract that now?
I have played Forged Alliance. Neither the Seraphim, nor the existing three, are suddenly remade as a pure support race. Are you playing some sort of bootleg version?.... you're quite sure you're not playing a mod for Myth with the same name, right?
I didn't get to finish the 2v2, my team partner couldn't understand why I was sitting on my resources. He got quite cross. I guess he wasn't a pro player, right? Our opponents didn't seem to mind it though. Have you tried it yet? On GPGnet, right?
Unranked vs Ranked - will you ever read and understand that quote from the EA site? If NS2 hopes to compete with BF, it needs to understand the rules of modern servers. As for unranked servers..... don't take my word for it, ask FW, he's best qualified to give you examples of how proper competitive play compares to random pub.
You can't understand why people picking and choosing their opponents will make for poor global gameplay? Because people will only wany to pick opponents that give max reward for min risk. Its all very well saying a set of six top tier players risk losing 32 ranks when they play newbies, but the fact of the matter is that barring an act of Flayra, those six newbies are going to get ripped apart like a tin can. If you don't know why that would be a bad thing on a global level, then you don't really understand what makes multiplayer games fun.
"Why are you saying implying the ranking serves no purpose in server balance? have you understood how it works yet?"
So now this is your fourth attempt, and you've managed to contradict not one, but TWO previous attempts. I mean, I know its only your fifth ranked language, but its not rocket science to understand what "IF" means, is it? I refer you to the earlier bolded statement plus explanation.
In respect of RTS vs FPS disconnect punishments, the issue here is that in RTS games, you are responsible for your screwups, and you can generally do something about it. In NS, other people will screw up severely and you will be left to clean up the mess. Look closer - in an RTS, if my team buddy messes up, the worst I have to deal with is a 2v1 situation but at least I'll have the army I want. In NS, if my buddy screws up then he also effectively ruins the game for me too. It would be equivalent to your RTS partner "accidentally" wiping out your base and units 10 minutes in. Sure, you can recover from it, but you know you're going to lose unless your opponents screw up spectacularly.
By the way, neither FW or I are particularly stubborn. We're quote open to logical reasoning. Problem is, you're not using any. Even setting that part aside, your concept hasn't been fully fleshed out, and spends more of its time punishing people for daring to play as one side.
I'd begrudge the devs wasting time on even beta-testing this - its lunacy is evident from the first read. By the way, you ought to know that beta testing is INTENDED to find ways to break a game. Saying FW is "prejudiced" for wanting to do the job properly is just further evidence of your utter failure to grasp the issues at hand here.
<b>Sarisel</b> - his ranking "system" is biased against preferential Marine or Alien players, and especially biased against Marines as a whole. Bad Comm? Tough, lose rank. Skilled Fade? Sorry, you'll need to be equally skilled as a marine if you want to play on this server, but you can go over here and play with people half your skill level since they play both sides.
The other thing is - if rank doesn't stop you getting into a server, if it's nothing more than a nouveau Gamerscore, then why waste time on it?
There are other threads with much more worthy solutions, that integrate ranking into local balancing and do so in a way that does not penalise any particular section of the community.
<b>Firewater</b> - You have to think down at that level -
"ranking: it's useless both for casual and competitive players"
There's a halfquote worth putting in a sig. I am quotings the passagings, nothing moreings, nothing lessings, unless it somehow alters the comprehensionings of my observationings. Wait, I can do better, "I adduce the segments I riposte to". For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest!!!
<!--quoteo(post=1677084:date=Apr 29 2008, 08:57 AM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 29 2008, 08:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677084"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I quote the passages I respond to, nothing more, nothing less, unless it somehow alters the comprehension of my observation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok you win, check sig.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, it is, if you are so categorical about a system you have never seen at work. Would it be in any way possible you could be a bit more moderate in your observations, especially when they are subjective?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Based off the amount of variables that take place during the actual game, it would be crude to based a ranking system of wins/losses and expect a correlation of balance with said rankings.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->After having said this, how could you possibly pretend you're not prejudicial?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No more prejudicial then your comments about my ability to playtest <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Man I read these essays more than my own books for class.
This has clearly been debated to death, I will no longer be posting here as its kind of pointless. The rest of you guys enjoy.
There is no way to rank players in a multiplayer game out side of of dictation. Even professional sports can't acuratly rank in team player games. Defenders are always underated. Only quarterbacks and pointgaurds or really tall asians are famous. Battlefield has a ranking system. Its fun, but it's absolutly pointless. People with higher K:D ratios and stats are the people playing on the easy servers. Well if you want to limit skill on a server that would converge all the good players closer together and keep those people racking up stacks from doing so. However this is a multiplayer game and people play casually and often with friends. What will happen then is the higher ranked friend can't play with his lower ranked friend unless the lower rank friend joins the higher rank friend on a high rank server and then you get a flood nubs playing with the elite on the high rank servers and in the end high rank servers with just be filled with a variety of random ranks and highly skilled players will either play on servers with random skill or they will play on servers known for high skill. Low skill servers will be protected from high rank servers but theres no point because now the low rankers have less competition and will rank up and be forced to play on high rank servers and drag their nub friends with them. There is no way to systematically segregate skill levels without limiting what friends can play with who. This is not a problem in 1 on 1 rts because you either play ranked against 1 stranger or unranked with a friend. In the end choice is the still the best method. Take the hamptons for example. The top clanners centered around there by choice. It was a private registered server but pretty much anyone could get in. In battlefield 2142 the TG server is undeniably the highest skilled server. Point being skilled players will flock together to play in general based on choice. People like to play for fun. Most people who play ns prefer to play against equally skilled players and not slaughter nubs all day. People who like to slaughter nubs all day flock off to play counter strike and snap pictures of them getting kicked for being called a hacker again or they play ns combat and leave ns classic players alone. All the game really needs a couple community players to make nuby dedicated servers with active admins that keep good players strikly by arbitrary dictation. The TG commity in battlefield is also good. Server rules are simple. Follow orders and no exploints. Anyone that wants to learn can because they will take the time to teach them if they are willing to listen. I think tons of TG members are Aholes but some are smug but thats another story. Some kind of server like this would be good but not as easy to run since smaller games = greater effect of nubs.
They idea comes from most good players are willing to train nubs. Nubs choose to stay noobs because they refuse to learn and who cares if they deal with gankers. You can't teach a uncordinated player to shoot straight but ns anmd battlefield are 50% stratagy and you can teach anyone stratagy.
<!--quoteo(post=1677137:date=Apr 30 2008, 01:29 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 30 2008, 01:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677137"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This has clearly been debated to death, I will no longer be posting here as its kind of pointless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1676943:date=Apr 27 2008, 11:18 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 27 2008, 11:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676943"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On another note, directed to Flatrick - Splitting one reply over TEN POSTS is tantamount to spamming, and your postcount won't gain you any kudos here, my friend.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Necrosis - if you're not aware, there is a ten quote limit on each post. In addition, flatrick split up some of those posts for the sake of organisation (that is, he was responding to post 1 by Poster1 in posts 1a,b,c; post 2 by Poster2 in posts 2a,b; etc.). And since you say that post counts don't count for anything here, which all must agree, then you must also agree that splitting up his posts into several <b>does not matter</b>. Now then, with that in mind, please continue.
Firewater, gotta learn how to lose gracefully <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1677144:date=Apr 30 2008, 02:02 AM:name=enigma)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(enigma @ Apr 30 2008, 02:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677144"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->tl;dr<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, this topic suffers from quite a lot of it.
<!--quoteo(post=1677307:date=May 1 2008, 08:19 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ May 1 2008, 08:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677307"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Necrosis - if you're not aware, there is a ten quote limit on each post. In addition, flatrick split up some of those posts for the sake of organisation (that is, he was responding to post 1 by Poster1 in posts 1a,b,c; post 2 by Poster2 in posts 2a,b; etc.). And since you say that post counts don't count for anything here, which all must agree, then you must also agree that splitting up his posts into several <b>does not matter</b>. Now then, with that in mind, please continue.
Firewater, gotta learn how to lose gracefully <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, this is my perspective on all this: I think this is a great idea, and it should be considered and tested (among others). I have had no problem comprehending any of flatrick's statements or arguments; despite it being, apparently, his fifth language. In fact I'm quite surprised that he can achieve such a level of competency with the English language, considering it being his fifth. Many of the "counter-arguments" presented seemed to me, to come from either a lack of understanding, or an inability to see the bigger picture. However, some posters did come up with some valid counter-arguments; namely, from memory, Sarisel and locallyunscene.
One other thing, you guys are so very unfriendly. I'm disappointed in you. Tsk tsk tsk. Don't let them get you down, flatrick. Thanks for the contribution.
One final thing. I have to say, this thread amused and entertained me to no end; thanks to flatrick and Necrosis. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> So it gets: <img src="http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/227/159616851853e41e2c8djn6.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /> (well, maybe not as great as all that. 85% perhaps? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />)
Harimau, this is a horrendous idea if you're going to base it on the Myth system. Utterly horrendous. BF has enough problems with statpadders, NS has enough division as it is, we simply don't need a system that will have people crowing about their unrealistic ranking.
Furthermore, you cannot create a system that FORCES players to play both sides equally. Again, when people pay money for a product, they should be fit to play it as they like. Now, if they act like a child, they can expect to be kicked - that is a fair exchange. However, if they are playing within the boundaries of the game, then they should be able to expect entry into any server.
Debarring them, on the grounds that they don't like playing marines, is ridiculous. Penalising a team for the action of their green commander is not only ridiculous, but discourages ANY new player from getting in the chair. All the more so when you bear in mind that this ridiculous system is intended to be linked into a ranking system that tells people where they can and cannot play.
If you cannot see the contradictory nature of his proposals, then that is unfortunate for you.
Perhaps as a bookmark to this thread, may I point out that anyone citing the quote limit as a reason for having to make multiple posts should really NOT BE WASTING QUOTES ON PITHY REMARKS nor wasting them on misquoting other posters. The forums have a working font colour system which can also be used for quotation, and people with at least an average grasp of English will understand that quotes are not entirely necessary when one is addressing the body of a post.
Post counts count for nothing, but that doesn't mean we have free reign to make one word posts that spam up the forum.
BTW, this isn't about "winning" or "losing", its about debating valid systems for NS2. As such, comments like the one you directed at FW are unwelcome and do not foster a good environment. Don't get me wrong, FW and I have headbutted in the past, but I don't think it ever boiled down to "winning" and "losing", more that it was about differences in opinion. Or at least that's how I saw it.
<!--quoteo(post=1677491:date=May 3 2008, 09:25 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 3 2008, 09:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677491"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you cannot see the contradictory nature of his proposals, then that is unfortunate for you. Perhaps as a bookmark to this thread, may I point out that anyone citing the quote limit as a reason for having to make multiple posts should really NOT BE WASTING QUOTES ON PITHY REMARKS nor wasting them on misquoting other posters. The forums have a working font colour system which can also be used for quotation, and people with at least an average grasp of English will understand that quotes are not entirely necessary when one is addressing the body of a post.
Post counts count for nothing, but that doesn't mean we have free reign to make one word posts that spam up the forum.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> From the point of an observer of your discussion:
I'm having trouble following your argument, if you had used quotes in your posts more liberally, I wouldn't have this problem. It all boils down to convenience, making double posts to "cheat" the quote limit system is more convenient than using text color.
His proposal is really quite simple. Your team wins, you gain points. Your team loses, you lose points.
The minimum number of points you can have is 0. The number of points you gain is based on the average number of points of the opposite team compared against your number of points (or perhaps the average number of points of your team); and the same will be true of the number of points you lose. Because of the nature of the system, when you have many points, you risk more points and stand to gain less points; while when you have less points, you risk less points but stand to gain more points. There are only three categories in which you can gain/lose points (representing three entirely different playstyles): Commander, Alien, Marine. What this suggestion encourages: playing to win by winning as a team through playing as a team.
It's pretty straightforward to me. What is it you have trouble understanding?
Necrosis.. I have trouble understanding why you place so much importance on ranking, and yet you're against it. You say, 'why should the team be punished for their commander's actions' meaning you're actually placing an importance on rank/points. But really, let's put that aside for a moment and look at it from another perspective. If your commander is ######, and your team loses because of it, there's no punishment, right? Wrong. You just lost a game. There's your punishment right there. What's the ######ing difference? Do you want the game to reward losses? Do you want the game to only punish the 'bad players'? Where's the teamwork in that? You play as a team; then you win as a team or you lose as a team. That's all there is to it. This ranking system is essentially a weighted sum of teamwins and teamlosses of games you've personally participated in. Those who win often, and play often, are likely those that are both skilled and experienced. And for those that do not win often, or do not play often, they are likely those that are not skilled and/or inexperienced.
Also, I agree with aNytiMe about the quotes. And don't get pedantic about what's irrelevant to the discussion. It's unbecoming.
edit: As for 'winning' and 'losing' the debate; I was only half serious. It was more that Firewater chose to give up, possibly because he knew his arguments weren't going anywhere; which was, imo, uncharacteristic of him - considering how vehemently (over many, many pages of threads) he has opposed certain suggestions, and advocated others.
And I'm sure Firewater is quite able to stand up for himself, Necrosis.
For a good example, consider non-consequential marking in examinations. You do the right things, in the right order, but get the wrong answer. Points for method, but not for the final answer.
Marines should be awarded points in this way. If they follow orders, act like a team, play well, then they shouldn't be penalised because their comm blew it. Firstly, because they didn't do anything "wrong" to warrant a punishment, and secondly because penalising them for a poor comm will only lead to people staying out of the chair more than ever. Not conducive to the NS community at all.
Aliens have a shared responsibility, and are easier to punish because of that.
Problem is, you can't punish either side because of their unique styles. Aliens have a shared responsibility, and should not be treated more harshly because its easier to do. Likewise, Marines answer to their Comm, and should not be punished for a failure that they are largely powerless to correct.
Even if you kick the Comm from the chair, you're losing valuable minutes organising a vote and selecting a new and more competent Comm.
You cannot force people to play every aspect of the game. Some people can't Comm, some people won't Comm. I've been in games where players have openly mocked the Commander for having a young voice. Likewise, there are people who don't like playing Marines at all - they prefer Aliens. Naturally, others still will prefer Marines.
You cannot tell these paying customers that "sorry, you want to play here, then you need to get good with both races AND sitting in the chair". You are enforcing a very specific playstyle on them, and in a restricted ranked system then you are additionally forcing them out of servers.
Again, consider any other major game - you are not forced to play every BF team, or every weapon, or every Starcraft race, or both sides in Chess. You can happily stay on one side, forever.
This is the aspect of the system that we have been trying to address. The mechanics of how the system works are largely irrelevant, the problem is with the outcome. Which part of that confuses you?
Is it interesting that you have chosen to focus on the mechanics of how the system operates, rather than the much more pertinent problems regarding it's outcome.
Let me clarify my position on ranking, for your benefit. LOCAL ranking would be very handy for communities on a server by server basis. It's easier for people to keep track of, and it doesn't prevent you from playing elsewhere. GLOBAL ranking involves far more variables, and people are trying to link it to a restrictive system - something that would cripple the online community. In addition, I am opposed to the concept of restriction dictated by the game engine rather than community/admins. It is one thing for the guy running the server to kick you out, it is quite another for the game itself to refuse you admission in the first place.
Again, please note that a globally restrictive system has not been achieved in any online FPS game. I'm not even certain that it's ever been attempted, and I don't understand why anyone would even try it.
Marines don't play "as a team". The squaddies do, but their Comm calls the shots. You don't screw the squaddies over because their Commander dropped the ball.
The issue here is not to "reward" players. NS will never thrive in that sort of system, because it only ever leads to statpadding (barring the BF weapon unlock system).
You can't reward them, so by extension you cannot punish them.
You certainly CANNOT say "Well your Comm sucked, so now you're being kicked from the server because of it. Have a nice day, please buy the forthcoming NS2 expansion pack". You cannot do it.
You can't rank it on W:L either, because people on a regular server will quickly know which side to join when they connect. You can check the names and choose appropriately, or lurk in the readyroom until one side is getting a clear advantage. What is more, Commanders will be under even more pressure than usual. There will be no fun to playing, because people will be more concerned with making enough wins to keep them on their server. Not to mention, as FW pointed out, that you can be "rewarding" leeches who are looking for an easy win to keep their stats good.
Why would anyone in their right mind buy a game at retail that used the above system???
Don't get me wrong - some games involve people deliberately supporting their star players - but this is quite quite different to Lerking in a vent beside 3 DC and waiting for time to tick by between spams.
As for the alleged pedantry, seems a bit risible that you consider that unbecoming, but you're quite happy to openly flame away and justify it with "oh, but it was all in jest".
FW chose to leave a circular argument. So did the OP, from the look of it. I'm not "sticking up" for anyone, I'm just pointing out that if you're approaching a discussion on ranking systems as a "win/loss" situation, then you should really reassess your reasons for commenting.
This is not about any one person or group of person's preferences "winning", its about discussing what is best for our current and future community as a whole. Bear in mind that people will be outright purchasing NS2, and paying customers have a lot more clout than freegans or donators.
I can say, hand on heart, that NO paying player is going to subscribe to a system that forces them to play all sides, all weapons, all roles equally and at the same level just in order to access a regular server. None.
You may well say that people could go for the Unranked servers, but I would point you to earlier comments plus the quote from the company owning one of the largest market shares in online FPS games.
First off, it's good to see that some recent repliers have shown a bit more optimism about this ranking.
<!--quoteo(post=1677565:date=May 4 2008, 04:00 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 4 2008, 04:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So did the OP, from the look of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I refrain myself from posting because it's extremely time-consuming to try and answer you. I have to repeat myself over and over again and you constantly choose to ignore what I say. I'm scolding myself for re-posting here even though I agreed on not to, but it's just too hard to keep on reading your nonsense and not straighten things up.
<!--quoteo(post=1677089:date=Apr 29 2008, 03:36 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 29 2008, 03:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677089"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do believe FPS players are different from RTS players and RPG players. They're just completely different types of games where you have to spend time building your base/leveling your character before you're ready to compete. The lines have blurred a bit in recent years, but the core style of FPS gameplay which is jump right in the game and shoot things, is still prevalent.
Well, in my observations the "average" casual FPS player does not want to play a very long game. They don't want a time-commitment so much as a time-sink. A casual RPG player wants to see what kind of strange builds be can level his character with. A casual RTS player wants to build his base and try different strats. A casual FPS player wants to shoot virtual monsters ASAP.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing entirely. Nonetheless, I'd like to believe that a Natural Selection player is not that "average" casual FPS player. This hybrid game focuses so much on RTS elements that it requires, in my opinion, much more depth in gameplay (and therefore, in time-commitment) than most of the other FPS games. I, for one, would like to have an FPS game with something more than "shooting virtual monsters ASAP" without the need to join a clan and having to plan beforehand when I can have a challenging and enjoyable session, such as a clan-match. I think recent FPS games have proved that there exists a community of players that crave something more out of their FPS games.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hm. How best to explain to someone who is using their fifth language. English happens to be my first, among many, and therefore comes with an accompanying level of skill. I use English because Latin doesn't really have many words for videogames, and certainly none that are taught in education. Of course, most people would be sufficiently aware that trying to debate cogently in their FIFTH ranked language would be an exercise in futility. Most people. At least it explains the contradictory Babel. I hate to break it to you, but you're not sufficiently capable of explaining your argument in your fifth language. Consider consulting a friend who has it somewhere within their top three, as it'll make your forum experience much richer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This time I will try not to comment on any of your puerile provocations, which are not only offensive but risible in so many levels. Despite the unsympathetic tone of your off-topic remarks, I hope others reading you will be as humored as me in your futile attempts to push others to the ground and boasting with your linguistic proficiency.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"How are they penalised for teamplay in this ranking system which is supposed to promote teamplay?" "If his team loses, he would lose points for such actions."
WHAT THIS MEANS - You have said that they are not penalised, and then you state that they are penalised for a loss. This is called a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which means that each statement is invalidating the other. Get familiar with this word.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand how those quotes can make you think that I've said "that they are not penalised [...] for a loss"?
In the second quote, I'm telling you that they are penalized for a loss. In the first quote, I'm asking you how people are penalized for <b>teamplay</b>. The fact that a team is not penalized for teamplay does not mean that they are not penalized for a loss, this seems obvious, right? A team which has great teamplay can still lose and get penalized.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->""If you win the match in a higher-ranked game ... you would be getting more points" "I don't follow you? What are you getting a giant killer bonus for?"
WHAT THIS MEANS - You have said that a higher ranked game earns more points, then you state that there is no bonus for playing a higher rank. This is called a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which means that each statement is invalidating the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On a first note, I've never said that you do not get more points for playing a higher rank and those two quotes do not infer that either.
On a second note, this is not the first time you're quoting my <b>questions</b> and telling me that I'm making such and such <b>statements</b>. As you are so extremely picky with linguistics, I find it hard to believe that these are simple slip-ups; rather convenient and crude ways of making me say what you want me to say.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With regards to the W:L statements, you agree that one cannot rank on W:L alone, and then you state that this system is ranked on W:L. This is called a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which means that each statement is invalidating the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you quote the passage in which I supposedly "agree that one cannot rank on W:L alone"?
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->SupCom - There are numerous ways to cook the books, half of which rely on how the game calculated rank (you still haven't looked at the ELO system, sadly). One of which involves a bit of coordination with your partner. Of course, you'd have to be rank-happy to do them, but there's always someone...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure what you're implying here, but the only thing that comes to my mind is that you're claiming some players are tricking the automatching system to oppose partners in such a way that one of the partners could deliberately make his team lose, thus letting the other partner get an easy win. Not only have I never seen such scenarios take place in Supreme Commander, but it is evidently something very impractical and improbable. Impractical, because you would need to find another way to level up the rank of one of the partners (this is to say the one that is losing intentionally) in order for the automatching system to select all partners in the same game. Improbable, since this kind of trickery would be fairly easily spotted by the players teamed up with the partner who loses on purpose.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Myth did not require teams. It didn't. Doesn't matter how complex it was, it didn't require players to work in concert. It rewarded those who did, certainly, but it wasn't a requirement to playing the game. NS requires a team. It requires other players. It is not an option for you to try, but a requirement you must observe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, so one game <b>requires</b> and the other <b>strongly recommends</b> having teams. Bringing this observation to the original point which was being made, it still makes both games very similar to each other and you would call them both team-based.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I quoted from EA, came from EA. If you don't believe it, go to the website. It's in English, but Babelfish should help you there. Now, since EA has one of the larger market shares in FPS games, specifically tactical ones involving commanders (BF2 onwards), I would think that they know more about how ranked and unranked play than someone who played an RTS for a bit and thinks it is the Second Coming. I like EA about as much as anyone else (ha ha ha) but you can't argue with the numbers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Speaking of Second Coming, you quote EA's text like an irreproachable holy book. EA having one of the larger market shares in FPS games does not mean they necessarily have the best ranking systems out there and that these systems could not be improved.
As I've already said, in my opinion FPS scoring systems have been utter failures so far and are uncomparable to the many functional RTS systems. Also, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/074348.shtml" target="_blank">the EA boss himself has recently admitted that they "have a problem"</a>: <i>Like the movie industry, the videogame industry has become enamored with sequels which are generally seen as safe money makers. But the strategy hasn't really gone according to plan in either industry, as many highly touted sequels end up as busts, while the market as a whole suffers from the lack of creativity or daring. Of the videogame makers, perhaps no company has milked its franchises the way Electronic Arts has, as it pumps out new versions of its sports-based games every year. For a while, the company was a Wall Street darling, as its annual upgrades were seen as must haves for fans, giving the kind of regular subscription revenue that investors love to see. But the company's sales haven't been so hot of late, and it's finally recognizing that it's not creating much value by offering endless iterations of each game. <b><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->The new CEO admits that if the company doesn't do a better job in the innovation department, it's going to continue to suffer.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b> This is, of course, a lesson that Hollywood bosses have been reluctant to admit, even though it's been obvious for some time. Perhaps EA's willingness to be introspective is owed to the fact that it doesn't have piracy to blame for its problems. Although there's scant evidence that piracy is at the root of Hollywood's ills, the studios have been able to delude themselves into thinking that their problems are somehow out of their control.</i>
Maybe innovating the FPS ranking system would be one way to go?
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"I hope they make an NS2 where the glory for dropping hives all goes exclusively to you."
I should bloody well hope so, it costs enough res to drop the thing, and gorges get precious little respect as is. Or do you think that dropping a hive is worthless? Maybe you think both, which would be........ a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do actually think both, without being contradictory. It is worthless if it does not contribute to your teamwin (for instance, if you already have enough hives).
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By the way.... did you just say that people who only play one side will be penalised? So an exceptional Alien player wouldn't be allowed into an exceptional server because he doesn't like Marines? Coupled with your idea that Marines should be penalised for having a bad Comm? Can you not see how patently nonsensical this is??<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've suggested both possibilities numerous times: <i>the weight of the rank in match-making (be it automatic or manual) could entirely or partially be attributed to a specific category (such as commander, marines or aliens).</i> In other words, you could base the entry to a server on overall points (this being the sum of all points in all categories) or (entirely or partially) on the points of the category you choose to play. However, if the latter option is used, the overall rank will loose in importance and would only have a symbolic value. Also, as you've already pointed out, players could eventually end up stacking the alien-side because marines get penalized by a lousy commander. This problem could be solved or at least palliated by giving the marines and commander an easier scoring (i.e. 10% more points in case of a win and 10% less points lost in case of a loss).
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why does your system punish teamplayers? Well for one, it hates gorges.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How come?
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For two, it hates people who play one side, but play that side very well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See above.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Finally, and for three, if a Marine team follows orders, builds, shoots, HA trains, and their Comm screws up, then you do not punish 5< players for ONE making a mistake that they are impotent to correct. Aliens are different - their capabilities are fundamentally equal. Marines and their Comm are fundamentally different - and you cannot punish the Marines for following the wrong orders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like you said yourself, Marines and their Commander are fundamentally different. The latter is a capital player for the whole marine-team. If he screws up, it makes kind of sense that the whole team suffers much more than if a simple marine would make a mistake.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b>
How many times? How many times? The first two times, you struggled with IF, and on your third attempt you manage to contradict yourself with regards to the use of the word imply. Here's a handy hint - if I think ranking served no point in server balance, I would say it. What I gave you is a logical process. IF it serves no purpose, then there is no need to have it. How can you not understand a fundamental logic statement?
Putting it at a more BASIC level - IF ranking serves no purpose, then there is no point to having it. Is that easier for you to grasp? Now, as a competent adult, I know that the above bolded statement is not a secret inference, but a conditional sentence. You're thinking of something like "Even children as young as 3 years of age can effectively perform simple logical inference tasks", which could infer that anyone who cannot perform them is mentally inferior to a 3 yr old. This would also cause them to be clinically diagnosed as suffering from mental retardation, or having learning difficulties. Of course, that relies on the person being able to understand the language that the simple logical inference task is framed in...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny. No, really, that's funny. You should play in a Comedy club called "The Persnickety Malaperts".
So, by the look of it, I guess you're right and I've misunderstood you from the very beginning. You never intended to infer anything of the sort and I simply made it up. The good news though is that <i>a contrario</i> you must then think that the ranking I've suggested does serve a purpose in server balance.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"you've never even played Myth?"
Not even a shred of evidence to support your claim? Tut tut.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tut tut at yourself. You're the one arrogating before I even answer.
For one, you've never said that you have played Myth, although it would obviously give a lot more weight to any of your comments relating to that game. Also, you've never denied that you have not played Myth, although I invited you to "take a weekend, buy Myth II, test the game online". Finally, you seem to suggest that you do not know how Myth's gameplay works by saying the following: "if Myth actually penalised players for their Leader's poor decisions, then it was a pretty poor system for encouraging teamplay."
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you find NS takes a "relatively long" time, on average the problem is that you're playing it wrongly or badly. That's a common enough problem, it happens quite a lot on the majority of servers. Your argument is flawed, since one may as well say that "NS takes as long to play as the average game of Snakes & Ladders" and try to balance the game accordingly (NS NEEDS MORE LADDERS, WTFBBQ).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I've already said, you really are a finicky wisecracker and, on top of that, you have a hard time to debate without making dubious shortcuts in your argumentation. My argument stays perfectly valid, unlike yours, because one may not "as well say that ""NS takes as long to play as the average game of Snakes & Ladders"" and try to balance the game accordingly" since NS and Snakes & Ladders have no other points of comparison, unlike NS and Myth.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are misrepresenting Firewater, by the way. Just out of respect for a fellow forumer, let me remind you:
"The ranking system in battlefield 2 is just fine and dandy. Want to know why? The system does not attempt to balance teams based on leaderboard ranks."
Is that clear enough? BF2, BF2142, etc, does not ENFORCE BALANCE based on the leaderboard. You must be capable of understanding that "Encouraging Teamplay" is NOT THE SAME THING as "Enforce Balance". Those games encourage you to work togther, and many perks in fact ONLY work with squads - they do not force balanced play. Big world of difference, yes?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Following your reasoning is like struggling through an Escher's maze. Here's the original text to which you are replying to: <i>If these games encourage teamplay through their scoring system, I don't see why the NS developers couldn't try to imitate them. However, Firewater already said that the Battlefield ranking would be useless for balance purposes. If that is the case with Quake Wars as well, then there is no need to even mention the game, because as you said yourself: IF ranking is not used to balance servers, then why have it?</i>
So let me clear this out: 1. You and/or Firewater think that if ranking is not used to balance servers, there is no use having it. 2. You and/or Firewater think that Battlefield's ranking system is fine. 3. Battlefield's ranking system is not used to balance servers.
Can you see the dilemma linked to these 3 statements? I was not misrepresenting Firewater, just pointing out this particular problem. If you still think Battlefield's ranking system is fine, then you have to agree that ranking can also be used to encourage teamplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For the record, and since you really don't grasp logic, a bicycle is faster than a plane when they both have to travel down a 2ft wide tunnel. In a more conventional example, a plane with a 50 gallon tank of fuel will also fly approx 695 miles, then stop dead. A man on a bicycle can pedal comfortably at 20 mph, and will pass the stranded plane in around three days (8 hours of sleep, dont you know), no doubt waving cordially at the impotent pilot as he cycles past.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, but you forgot that the pilot has a rifle and takes down the man on the bicycle before he reaches the plane. Anyway, debating is evidently not your forte if you have to take it down a path of endless possibilities.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When did I say that you said "a player gets points for a loss too". I think you'll find my quote was that wins and losses COUNT for points, which you have said numerous times. Do you remember? When you're penalising people for a loss? Or are you going to retract that now?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. You're unremittingly telling me that I'm lying while getting the accusatory facts wrong. You told me that I said "a player gets points for a loss too" in your 5th reply to this post: <i>You say a player only gets points for a team win, but then <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->you say that a player gets points for a loss too<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. Make your mind up, refine your point system, because at the moment it's less than babble.</i>
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unranked vs Ranked - will you ever read and understand that quote from the EA site? If NS2 hopes to compete with BF, it needs to understand the rules of modern servers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, I didn't know EA was laying out the rules of modern servers.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for unranked servers..... don't take my word for it, ask FW, he's best qualified to give you examples of how proper competitive play compares to random pub.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By the way, I haven't stressed out this enough before, but there are players (such as myself) who are neither satisfied with random pubs nor competitive play. Random pubs offer, like their name suggests, too random of a gameplay and chaotic gaming environments. Competitive play requires too much involvement, time and skill.
A global ranking system would combine the benefits of both, without their drawbacks; it would permit easy access to somewhat competitive play and controlled environment, without demanding as much involvement, time and skill.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can't understand why people picking and choosing their opponents will make for poor global gameplay? Because people will only wany to pick opponents that give max reward for min risk. Its all very well saying a set of six top tier players risk losing 32 ranks when they play newbies, but the fact of the matter is that barring an act of Flayra, those six newbies are going to get ripped apart like a tin can. If you don't know why that would be a bad thing on a global level, then you don't really understand what makes multiplayer games fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that "people will only want to pick opponents that give max reward for min risk" is a key-element of this ranking system and is precisely what ensures balance on the servers (if match-making is not automatic). People will play against other people having the same rank as them. This is a warrant for <strike>poor</strike> good global gameplay.
There are several reasons why top tier players would not want to play against newbies: - Some newbie players can be skilled (i.e. if it's a new account of a good player) - Odds are that one or more of the top tier players will get disconnected in at least one of 32 sessions, making a loss more probable. And 1 loss equals 32 wins pointwise in this scenario. <i>Also have in mind that the 32 maximum points were a limit set in the Myth series, which could be increased in Natural Selection.</i> - It takes enormous amounts of time to get any significant amount of points. <i>In Myth, one category of points would be reset to 0 every 1-3 months or so, making it impossible to have an unlimited amount of points in any category. In Natural Selection, such a reset would probably be most practical at sub-category levels.</i> - As you said, it does not make multiplayer games fun.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In respect of RTS vs FPS disconnect punishments, the issue here is that in RTS games, you are responsible for your screwups, and you can generally do something about it. In NS, other people will screw up severely and you will be left to clean up the mess. Look closer - in an RTS, if my team buddy messes up, the worst I have to deal with is a 2v1 situation but at least I'll have the army I want. In NS, if my buddy screws up then he also effectively ruins the game for me too. It would be equivalent to your RTS partner "accidentally" wiping out your base and units 10 minutes in. Sure, you can recover from it, but you know you're going to lose unless your opponents screw up spectacularly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is preposterous. How can you pretend that a 2v1 situation in an RTS does not ruin the game for you? <i>A fortiori</i>, in a ranked game, how can you claim that the slightest screw-up from your teammate won't affect your game? In any case, it is impertinent to compare what is an equivalent screw-up in NS and an RTS. The fact is that in both games you are responsible for your screwups, but you can't do much about your teammates mistakes. The other important fact is that the higher you are in ranks, the less probable it is for anyone to do any "game-ruining" mistakes.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By the way, neither FW or I are particularly stubborn. We're quote open to logical reasoning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You say you're not stubborn and open to logical reasoning, yet you blindly and persistently try to object everything I say. Proof of that once again just in the following quote.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By the way, you ought to know that beta testing is INTENDED to find ways to break a game. Saying FW is "prejudiced" for wanting to do the job properly is just further evidence of your utter failure to grasp the issues at hand here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, we agree on the fact that beta-testing is "a field test of the beta version of a product (as software) especially by testers outside the company developing it that is conducted prior to commercial release" (<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beta-testing" target="_blank">Merriam Webster online dictionary</a>). Do we also agree on the fact that prejudice is "a preconceived judgment or opinion" (<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice" target="_blank">Merriam Webster online dictionary</a>)?
You, however, think that someone saying "I hope I do beta-test your system because I want to show the developers first hand how broken it is" is not prejudicial? You do not think Firewater has a preconceived judgment or opinion concerning this ranking system when he clearly claims it is not functional before even having actually tested it? If that is the case, then tell me what is the purpose of beta-testing?
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Firewater</b> - You have to think down at that level -
"ranking: it's useless both for casual and competitive players"
There's a halfquote worth putting in a sig. I am quotings the passagings, nothing moreings, nothing lessings, unless it somehow alters the comprehensionings of my observationings. Wait, I can do better, "I adduce the segments I riposte to". For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest!!!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An eloquent mirror of your personality.
<!--quoteo(post=1677137:date=Apr 30 2008, 01:29 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 30 2008, 01:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677137"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Based off the amount of variables that take place during the actual game, it would be crude to based a ranking system of wins/losses and expect a correlation of balance with said rankings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Win:Loss ratio encloses all the pertinent variables, unlike any other ratio.
I'll edit the original post and insert the most important remarks in it.
<!--quoteo(post=1677340:date=May 1 2008, 07:06 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ May 1 2008, 07:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677340"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Don't let them get you down, flatrick. Thanks for the contribution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks. And don't worry, they're not getting to me...I'm just worried about the ranking system which will be implemented in NS2 and I hope it will be -if not this one- some system that works well with the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1677491:date=May 3 2008, 11:25 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 3 2008, 11:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677491"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS has enough division as it is<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet you are in favor of "solutions, that integrate ranking into local balancing"? Global ranking allows players, as its name implies, to join any servers with their status unchanged. Local balancing hampers players' free movement and divides them to groups of regulars on different local servers.
<!--quoteo(post=1677491:date=May 3 2008, 11:25 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 3 2008, 11:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677491"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Furthermore, you cannot create a system that FORCES players to play both sides equally. Again, when people pay money for a product, they should be fit to play it as they like.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notwithstanding that this ranking system does not necessarily force players to play both sides (see above about "the weight of the rank in match-making"), you seem to blissfully ignore that most games force players to play certain sides or do certain things. If you want to see all the cinematics, stories and other content of a game, you often need to play all sides. As a recent commercially successful example, take Universe at War. You also need to complete all missions. As a recent commercially successful example, take Grand Theft Auto 4. If you want to play with all the units, weapons and maps, you often need to unlock them. As a recent commercially successful example, take Grand Turismo 5 Prologue. I could go on and on with examples of games forcing players to do things and still being bought by people. You could say that none of these locked elements are necessary for the game to be played, but I could say the same for the ranking. Also, note that even though a game does not force you to play all sides for you to go up in rank, it still is strongly recommended (since it gives you a much better insight to every side's strengths and weaknesses).
<!--quoteo(post=1677491:date=May 3 2008, 11:25 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 3 2008, 11:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677491"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Penalising a team for the action of their green commander is not only ridiculous, but discourages ANY new player from getting in the chair.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The team is penalized for the action of a green commander whether there is or isn't a ranking system such as this one. So, the intimidating aspect of playing such an important role has nothing to do with the ranking.
<!--quoteo(post=1677491:date=May 3 2008, 11:25 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 3 2008, 11:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677491"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->GLOBAL ranking involves far more variables<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does a global ranking involve more variables than a local ranking?
<!--quoteo(post=1677565:date=May 4 2008, 04:00 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 4 2008, 04:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In addition, I am opposed to the concept of restriction dictated by the game engine rather than community/admins. It is one thing for the guy running the server to kick you out, it is quite another for the game itself to refuse you admission in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you explain me what the benefit is of having an admin kicking a player not skilled enough for a server, staying afk or plainly misbehaving instead of an automatic system doing just that?
<!--quoteo(post=1677565:date=May 4 2008, 04:00 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 4 2008, 04:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, please note that a globally restrictive system has not been achieved in any online FPS game. I'm not even certain that it's ever been attempted, and I don't understand why anyone would even try it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never played any <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_first-person_shooter" target="_blank">Massively multiplayer online first-person shooters</a> but unless none of these games has any kind of automatic restrictive system, I'm pretty sure the players themselves achieve the same restrictive results, like in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMORTS" target="_blank">Massively multiplayer online real-time strategies</a> (i.e. Shattered Galaxies).
A classic online FPS could implement such a system for the numerous reasons that have already been stated.
For a good example, consider non-consequential marking in examinations. You do the right things, in the right order, but get the wrong answer. Points for method, but not for the final answer.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->Marines should be awarded points in this way. If they follow orders, act like a team, play well, then they shouldn't be penalised because their comm blew it. Firstly, because they didn't do anything "wrong" to warrant a punishment, and secondly because penalising them for a poor comm will only lead to people staying out of the chair more than ever. Not conducive to the NS community at all.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Aliens have a shared responsibility, and are easier to punish because of that.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->Problem is, you can't punish either side because of their unique styles. Aliens have a shared responsibility, and should not be treated more harshly because its easier to do. Likewise, Marines answer to their Comm, and should not be punished for a failure that they are largely powerless to correct.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Even if you kick the Comm from the chair, you're losing valuable minutes organising a vote and selecting a new and more competent Comm. <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->You cannot force people to play every aspect of the game. Some people can't Comm, some people won't Comm.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> I've been in games where players have openly mocked the Commander for having a young voice. <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->Likewise, there are people who don't like playing Marines at all - they prefer Aliens. Naturally, others still will prefer Marines.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->You cannot tell these paying customers that "sorry, you want to play here, then you need to get good with both races AND sitting in the chair". You are enforcing a very specific playstyle on them, and in a restricted ranked system then you are additionally forcing them out of servers.
Again, consider any other major game - you are not forced to play every BF team, or every weapon, or every Starcraft race, or both sides in Chess. You can happily stay on one side, forever. This is the aspect of the system that we have been trying to address. The mechanics of how the system works are largely irrelevant, the problem is with the outcome. Which part of that confuses you?
Is it interesting that you have chosen to focus on the mechanics of how the system operates, rather than the much more pertinent problems regarding it's outcome.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> Let me clarify my position on ranking, for your benefit. LOCAL ranking would be very handy for communities on a server by server basis. It's easier for people to keep track of, and it doesn't prevent you from playing elsewhere. GLOBAL ranking involves far more variables, and people are trying to link it to a restrictive system - <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->something that would cripple the online community. In addition, I am opposed to the concept of restriction dictated by the game engine rather than community/admins. It is one thing for the guy running the server to kick you out, it is quite another for the game itself to refuse you admission in the first place.
Again, please note that a globally restrictive system has not been achieved in any online FPS game.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> I'm not even certain that it's ever been attempted, <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->and I don't understand why anyone would even try it.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> Marines don't play "as a team". The squaddies do, but their Comm calls the shots. You don't screw the squaddies over because their Commander dropped the ball.
The issue here is not to "reward" players. NS will never thrive in that sort of system, because it only ever leads to statpadding (barring the BF weapon unlock system).
You can't reward them, so by extension you cannot punish them.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->You certainly CANNOT say "Well your Comm sucked, so now you're being kicked from the server because of it. Have a nice day, please buy the forthcoming NS2 expansion pack". You cannot do it.
You can't rank it on W:L either, because people on a regular server will quickly know which side to join when they connect. You can check the names and choose appropriately, or lurk in the readyroom until one side is getting a clear advantage. What is more, Commanders will be under even more pressure than usual. There will be no fun to playing, because people will be more concerned with making enough wins to keep them on their server. Not to mention, as FW pointed out, that you can be "rewarding" leeches who are looking for an easy win to keep their stats good.
Why would anyone in their right mind buy a game at retail that used the above system???<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Don't get me wrong - some games involve people deliberately supporting their star players - but this is quite quite different to Lerking in a vent beside 3 DC and waiting for time to tick by between spams. As for the alleged pedantry, seems a bit risible that you consider that unbecoming, but you're quite happy to openly flame away and justify it with "oh, but it was all in jest". FW chose to leave a circular argument. So did the OP, from the look of it. I'm not "sticking up" for anyone, I'm just pointing out that if you're approaching a discussion on ranking systems as a "win/loss" situation, then you should really reassess your reasons for commenting.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->This is not about any one person or group of person's preferences "winning", its about discussing what is best for our current and future community as a whole. Bear in mind that people will be outright purchasing NS2<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, and paying customers have a lot more clout than freegans or donators. <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->I can say, hand on heart, that NO paying player is going to subscribe to a system that forces them to play all sides, all weapons, all roles equally and at the same level just in order to access a regular server. None.
You may well say that people could go for the Unranked servers, but I would point you to earlier comments plus the quote from the company owning one of the largest market shares in online FPS games.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I took the liberty to quote your whole last reply just to show you all the passages (in green) in which you repeat yourself (within the same post or in regard to a previous one). They add strictly nothing to your argumentation, nor do they clarify it in any way. In fact, these steadfast reiterations are just making your arguments a whole lot more difficult to follow. Also, note that most of what is left (not in green) is pretty trivial. I hope you finally understand that you need to improve your debating-skills.
<!--quoteo(post=1677549:date=May 4 2008, 05:16 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ May 4 2008, 05:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677549"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Using a win based system will not work because it ranks the Michael Jordan of the team equally as the individual who has done next to nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're not realising that it balances out over a long-term period. In the short-term, there's obviously going to be problems. But that's the case with any ranking system. If someone is consistently on a winning team over a long period (or many games) that someone is likely a good player; or does nothing but is extremely lucky - unlikely.
<!--quoteo(post=1677549:date=May 4 2008, 05:16 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ May 4 2008, 05:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677549"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You've attacked both me and Necrosis personally on this forums, then cry disappointment overall with the quality of the threads.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've never attacked anyone personally on this forum, since it wouldn't achieve anything. If you've taken offense from anything I've said, then that's on you.
One thing I've noticed. Sarisel, Firewater and Necrosis all use this argument: 'your logic is faulty' as if it's the Holy Grail of debate. None of them ever give sufficient evidence to support that, however. It's a form of personal attack that's really quite laughable. You guys really need to break out of the habit, it's poor form.
Comments
Casual players won't want to play many ranked games so it will be near useless for them. Competitive players won't really need it because they all ready know who they want to play with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you think this ranking system requires any more games to be played than any other ranking system?
If not, then what you say could apply to any game with a ranking: it's useless both for casual and competitive players...which I don't think is the case.
If you do, then you're not entirely wrong but might be apprehending a bit too much. The ranking surely needs more sessions played in order to establish any valable skill-status for a player, but no more than <b>most</b> casual players would play. Therefore, matchmaking would only be inaccurate at the lowest levels.
At least I hope the game developers would test out a few scoring systems, including this one, in some kind of beta-phase...because sceptics might then be surprised how well it actually works.
If not, then what you say could apply to any game with a ranking: it's useless both for casual and competitive players...which I don't think is the case.
If you do, then you're not entirely wrong but might be apprehending a bit too much. The ranking surely needs more sessions played in order to establish any valable skill-status for a player, but no more than <b>most</b> casual players would play. Therefore, matchmaking would only be inaccurate at the lowest levels.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, I should clarify a bit. Because this system penalizes players who leave early(which I agree is necessary for a W:L system), casual players will be less likely to play on ranked servers and fewer casual servers will be ranked. Most of the other ranking systems don't have this problem because as long as you're playing a non-custom game you're in a "ranked" server.
<!--quoteo(post=1677037:date=Apr 28 2008, 01:43 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 28 2008, 01:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At least I hope the game developers would test out a few scoring systems, including this one, in some kind of beta-phase...because sceptics might then be surprised how well it actually works.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree wholeheartedly.
It will not actually work, as your ranking system has no reliability (i.e. it does not measure what it is supposed to measure.).
This kind of a beat topic, as there are mounds of evidence that show why statistically it will be a failure. Leaderboards are a great thing for tracking statistics for fun. They are a terrible idea for balance.
But what about other platforms (i.e. RTS's, RPG's, race, etc.), in which you have a ranking system that punishes quitting players as well as loads of casual players playing the (ranked) game? Do you think FPS players are so different from the other type of gamers and so unused to these kind of conditions that casual FPS players would not bear to hold out for a whole session before quitting?
At least I don't think that is the case. Suffise to look at how long an average FPS player stays connected to a server...plenty long enough to do complete NS-sessions without interrupting them.
Pertinacious as you are, I just hope you will hold no major part in any Beta-testing.
If you are going to quote, take the whole sentence please.
<!--quoteo(post=1677053:date=Apr 28 2008, 05:07 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 28 2008, 05:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677053"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pertinacious as you are, I just hope you will hold no major part in any Beta-testing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing Pertinacious about disputing the faulty logic you have. I hope I do beta-test your system because I want to show the developers first hand how broken it is <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
I quote the passages I respond to, nothing more, nothing less, unless it somehow alters the comprehension of my observation.
<!--quoteo(post=1677055:date=Apr 29 2008, 12:11 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 29 2008, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677055"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nothing Pertinacious about disputing the faulty logic you have.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it is, if you are so categorical about a system you have never seen at work. Would it be in any way possible you could be a bit more moderate in your observations, especially when they are subjective?
<!--quoteo(post=1677055:date=Apr 29 2008, 12:11 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 29 2008, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677055"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I hope I do beta-test your system because I want to show the developers first hand how broken it is <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After having said this, how could you possibly pretend you're not prejudicial?
I do believe FPS players are different from RTS players and RPG players. They're just completely different types of games where you have to spend time building your base/leveling your character before you're ready to compete. The lines have blurred a bit in recent years, but the core style of FPS gameplay which is jump right in the game and shoot things, is still prevalent.
<!--quoteo(post=1677051:date=Apr 28 2008, 04:50 PM:name=flatrick)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(flatrick @ Apr 28 2008, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677051"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At least I don't think that is the case. Suffice to look at how long an average FPS player stays connected to a server...plenty long enough to do complete NS-sessions without interrupting them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, in my observations the "average" casual FPS player does not want to play a very long game. They don't want a time-commitment so much as a time-sink. A casual RPG player wants to see what kind of strange builds be can level his character with. A casual RTS player wants to build his base and try different strats. A casual FPS player wants to shoot virtual monsters ASAP.
Regardless, let's try again (That's already an opportunity for 2 posts full of 3 word quotes...)
"How are they penalised for teamplay in this ranking system which is supposed to promote teamplay?"
"If his team loses, he would lose points for such actions."
WHAT THIS MEANS - You have said that they are not penalised, and then you state that they are penalised for a loss. This is called a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which means that each statement is invalidating the other. Get familiar with this word.
""If you win the match in a higher-ranked game ... you would be getting more points"
"I don't follow you? What are you getting a giant killer bonus for?"
WHAT THIS MEANS - You have said that a higher ranked game earns more points, then you state that there is no bonus for playing a higher rank. This is called a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which means that each statement is invalidating the other.
With regards to the W:L statements, you agree that one cannot rank on W:L alone, and then you state that this system is ranked on W:L. This is called a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which means that each statement is invalidating the other.
SupCom - There are numerous ways to cook the books, half of which rely on how the game calculated rank (you still haven't looked at the ELO system, sadly). One of which involves a bit of coordination with your partner. Of course, you'd have to be rank-happy to do them, but there's always someone...
Myth did not require teams. It didn't. Doesn't matter how complex it was, it didn't require players to work in concert. It rewarded those who did, certainly, but it wasn't a requirement to playing the game. NS requires a team. It requires other players. It is not an option for you to try, but a requirement you must observe.
What I quoted from EA, came from EA. If you don't believe it, go to the website. It's in English, but Babelfish should help you there. Now, since EA has one of the larger market shares in FPS games, specifically tactical ones involving commanders (BF2 onwards), I would think that they know more about how ranked and unranked play than someone who played an RTS for a bit and thinks it is the Second Coming. I like EA about as much as anyone else (ha ha ha) but you can't argue with the numbers.
"I hope they make an NS2 where the glory for dropping hives all goes exclusively to you."
I should bloody well hope so, it costs enough res to drop the thing, and gorges get precious little respect as is. Or do you think that dropping a hive is worthless? Maybe you think both, which would be........ a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->!
By the way.... did you just say that people who only play one side will be penalised? So an exceptional Alien player wouldn't be allowed into an exceptional server because he doesn't like Marines? Coupled with your idea that Marines should be penalised for having a bad Comm? Can you not see how patently nonsensical this is??
The ELO rating system may have it's problems, but it's never screwed a chess player over for always wanting to play black. By logical extension, your "system" punishes Marines who don't get HMGs or GLs. Which is ultimately the Comm's responsibility, of course.
What an utterly ridiculous way to rank people. Permagorges lose to early fades (Hives mean nothing, don't you know), early fades lose to endgame fades, pure alien players lose to casual alien players. Bloody hell. A player who plays Marines AND Aliens badly somehow ends up equal to a decent one who sticks to one side. You can't see the problem with that once automatching is involved? Wow.
Why does your system punish teamplayers? Well for one, it hates gorges. For two, it hates people who play one side, but play that side very well. Finally, and for three, if a Marine team follows orders, builds, shoots, HA trains, and their Comm screws up, then you do not punish 5< players for ONE making a mistake that they are impotent to correct. Aliens are different - their capabilities are fundamentally equal. Marines and their Comm are fundamentally different - and you cannot punish the Marines for following the wrong orders.
<b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b>
How many times? How many times? The first two times, you struggled with IF, and on your third attempt you manage to contradict yourself with regards to the use of the word imply. Here's a handy hint - if I think ranking served no point in server balance, I would say it. What I gave you is a logical process. IF it serves no purpose, then there is no need to have it. How can you not understand a fundamental logic statement?
Putting it at a more BASIC level - IF ranking serves no purpose, then there is no point to having it. Is that easier for you to grasp? Now, as a competent adult, I know that the above bolded statement is not a secret inference, but a conditional sentence. You're thinking of something like "Even children as young as 3 years of age can effectively perform simple logical inference tasks", which could infer that anyone who cannot perform them is mentally inferior to a 3 yr old. This would also cause them to be clinically diagnosed as suffering from mental retardation, or having learning difficulties. Of course, that relies on the person being able to understand the language that the simple logical inference task is framed in...
With that said, <b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b>
"you've never even played Myth?"
Not even a shred of evidence to support your claim? Tut tut. I like it when you say that the only part I am right about is also the only part that's even remotely relevant to NS, vis-Ã -vis the pure support player (Comm, permagorge).
If you find NS takes a "relatively long" time, on average the problem is that you're playing it wrongly or badly. That's a common enough problem, it happens quite a lot on the majority of servers. Your argument is flawed, since one may as well say that "NS takes as long to play as the average game of Snakes & Ladders" and try to balance the game accordingly (NS NEEDS MORE LADDERS, WTFBBQ).
You are misrepresenting Firewater, by the way. Just out of respect for a fellow forumer, let me remind you:
"The ranking system in battlefield 2 is just fine and dandy. Want to know why? The system does not attempt to balance teams based on leaderboard ranks."
Is that clear enough? BF2, BF2142, etc, does not ENFORCE BALANCE based on the leaderboard. You must be capable of understanding that "Encouraging Teamplay" is NOT THE SAME THING as "Enforce Balance". Those games encourage you to work togther, and many perks in fact ONLY work with squads - they do not force balanced play. Big world of difference, yes?
For the record, and since you really don't grasp logic, a bicycle is faster than a plane when they both have to travel down a 2ft wide tunnel. In a more conventional example, a plane with a 50 gallon tank of fuel will also fly approx 695 miles, then stop dead. A man on a bicycle can pedal comfortably at 20 mph, and will pass the stranded plane in around three days (8 hours of sleep, dont you know), no doubt waving cordially at the impotent pilot as he cycles past.
You're just not looking at the specifics, which has been a consisten problem throughout. Now, to your lie regarding question dodging -
I've explained several times now, with examples, and I've told you to look at the ELO rating system itself. Considering you're allowing elite pure-alien players to play in the same rank as average all-round players, I'm somewhat surprised you haven't noticed this hole yourself.
When did I say that you said "a player gets points for a loss too". I think you'll find my quote was that wins and losses COUNT for points, which you have said numerous times. Do you remember? When you're penalising people for a loss? Or are you going to retract that now?
I have played Forged Alliance. Neither the Seraphim, nor the existing three, are suddenly remade as a pure support race. Are you playing some sort of bootleg version?.... you're quite sure you're not playing a mod for Myth with the same name, right?
I didn't get to finish the 2v2, my team partner couldn't understand why I was sitting on my resources. He got quite cross. I guess he wasn't a pro player, right? Our opponents didn't seem to mind it though. Have you tried it yet? On GPGnet, right?
Unranked vs Ranked - will you ever read and understand that quote from the EA site? If NS2 hopes to compete with BF, it needs to understand the rules of modern servers. As for unranked servers..... don't take my word for it, ask FW, he's best qualified to give you examples of how proper competitive play compares to random pub.
You can't understand why people picking and choosing their opponents will make for poor global gameplay? Because people will only wany to pick opponents that give max reward for min risk. Its all very well saying a set of six top tier players risk losing 32 ranks when they play newbies, but the fact of the matter is that barring an act of Flayra, those six newbies are going to get ripped apart like a tin can. If you don't know why that would be a bad thing on a global level, then you don't really understand what makes multiplayer games fun.
"Why are you saying implying the ranking serves no purpose in server balance? have you understood how it works yet?"
So now this is your fourth attempt, and you've managed to contradict not one, but TWO previous attempts. I mean, I know its only your fifth ranked language, but its not rocket science to understand what "IF" means, is it? I refer you to the earlier bolded statement plus explanation.
In respect of RTS vs FPS disconnect punishments, the issue here is that in RTS games, you are responsible for your screwups, and you can generally do something about it. In NS, other people will screw up severely and you will be left to clean up the mess. Look closer - in an RTS, if my team buddy messes up, the worst I have to deal with is a 2v1 situation but at least I'll have the army I want. In NS, if my buddy screws up then he also effectively ruins the game for me too. It would be equivalent to your RTS partner "accidentally" wiping out your base and units 10 minutes in. Sure, you can recover from it, but you know you're going to lose unless your opponents screw up spectacularly.
By the way, neither FW or I are particularly stubborn. We're quote open to logical reasoning. Problem is, you're not using any. Even setting that part aside, your concept hasn't been fully fleshed out, and spends more of its time punishing people for daring to play as one side.
I'd begrudge the devs wasting time on even beta-testing this - its lunacy is evident from the first read. By the way, you ought to know that beta testing is INTENDED to find ways to break a game. Saying FW is "prejudiced" for wanting to do the job properly is just further evidence of your utter failure to grasp the issues at hand here.
<b>Sarisel</b> - his ranking "system" is biased against preferential Marine or Alien players, and especially biased against Marines as a whole. Bad Comm? Tough, lose rank. Skilled Fade? Sorry, you'll need to be equally skilled as a marine if you want to play on this server, but you can go over here and play with people half your skill level since they play both sides.
The other thing is - if rank doesn't stop you getting into a server, if it's nothing more than a nouveau Gamerscore, then why waste time on it?
There are other threads with much more worthy solutions, that integrate ranking into local balancing and do so in a way that does not penalise any particular section of the community.
<b>Firewater</b> - You have to think down at that level -
"ranking: it's useless both for casual and competitive players"
There's a halfquote worth putting in a sig. I am quotings the passagings, nothing moreings, nothing lessings, unless it somehow alters the comprehensionings of my observationings. Wait, I can do better, "I adduce the segments I riposte to". For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest!!!
Ok you win, check sig.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, it is, if you are so categorical about a system you have never seen at work. Would it be in any way possible you could be a bit more moderate in your observations, especially when they are subjective?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Based off the amount of variables that take place during the actual game, it would be crude to based a ranking system of wins/losses and expect a correlation of balance with said rankings.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->After having said this, how could you possibly pretend you're not prejudicial?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No more prejudicial then your comments about my ability to playtest <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Man I read these essays more than my own books for class.
This has clearly been debated to death, I will no longer be posting here as its kind of pointless. The rest of you guys enjoy.
They idea comes from most good players are willing to train nubs. Nubs choose to stay noobs because they refuse to learn and who cares if they deal with gankers. You can't teach a uncordinated player to shoot straight but ns anmd battlefield are 50% stratagy and you can teach anyone stratagy.
Agreed.
Necrosis - if you're not aware, there is a ten quote limit on each post.
In addition, flatrick split up some of those posts for the sake of organisation (that is, he was responding to post 1 by Poster1 in posts 1a,b,c; post 2 by Poster2 in posts 2a,b; etc.).
And since you say that post counts don't count for anything here, which all must agree, then you must also agree that splitting up his posts into several <b>does not matter</b>.
Now then, with that in mind, please continue.
Firewater, gotta learn how to lose gracefully <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
Yes, this topic suffers from quite a lot of it.
In addition, flatrick split up some of those posts for the sake of organisation (that is, he was responding to post 1 by Poster1 in posts 1a,b,c; post 2 by Poster2 in posts 2a,b; etc.).
And since you say that post counts don't count for anything here, which all must agree, then you must also agree that splitting up his posts into several <b>does not matter</b>.
Now then, with that in mind, please continue.
Firewater, gotta learn how to lose gracefully <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh?
Now, this is my perspective on all this:
I think this is a great idea, and it should be considered and tested (among others).
I have had no problem comprehending any of flatrick's statements or arguments; despite it being, apparently, his fifth language. In fact I'm quite surprised that he can achieve such a level of competency with the English language, considering it being his fifth.
Many of the "counter-arguments" presented seemed to me, to come from either a lack of understanding, or an inability to see the bigger picture. However, some posters did come up with some valid counter-arguments; namely, from memory, Sarisel and locallyunscene.
One other thing, you guys are so very unfriendly. I'm disappointed in you. Tsk tsk tsk.
Don't let them get you down, flatrick. Thanks for the contribution.
One final thing. I have to say, this thread amused and entertained me to no end; thanks to flatrick and Necrosis. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
So it gets:
<img src="http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/227/159616851853e41e2c8djn6.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
(well, maybe not as great as all that. 85% perhaps? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />)
Furthermore, you cannot create a system that FORCES players to play both sides equally. Again, when people pay money for a product, they should be fit to play it as they like. Now, if they act like a child, they can expect to be kicked - that is a fair exchange. However, if they are playing within the boundaries of the game, then they should be able to expect entry into any server.
Debarring them, on the grounds that they don't like playing marines, is ridiculous. Penalising a team for the action of their green commander is not only ridiculous, but discourages ANY new player from getting in the chair. All the more so when you bear in mind that this ridiculous system is intended to be linked into a ranking system that tells people where they can and cannot play.
If you cannot see the contradictory nature of his proposals, then that is unfortunate for you.
Perhaps as a bookmark to this thread, may I point out that anyone citing the quote limit as a reason for having to make multiple posts should really NOT BE WASTING QUOTES ON PITHY REMARKS nor wasting them on misquoting other posters. The forums have a working font colour system which can also be used for quotation, and people with at least an average grasp of English will understand that quotes are not entirely necessary when one is addressing the body of a post.
Post counts count for nothing, but that doesn't mean we have free reign to make one word posts that spam up the forum.
BTW, this isn't about "winning" or "losing", its about debating valid systems for NS2. As such, comments like the one you directed at FW are unwelcome and do not foster a good environment. Don't get me wrong, FW and I have headbutted in the past, but I don't think it ever boiled down to "winning" and "losing", more that it was about differences in opinion. Or at least that's how I saw it.
Perhaps as a bookmark to this thread, may I point out that anyone citing the quote limit as a reason for having to make multiple posts should really NOT BE WASTING QUOTES ON PITHY REMARKS nor wasting them on misquoting other posters. The forums have a working font colour system which can also be used for quotation, and people with at least an average grasp of English will understand that quotes are not entirely necessary when one is addressing the body of a post.
Post counts count for nothing, but that doesn't mean we have free reign to make one word posts that spam up the forum.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From the point of an observer of your discussion:
I'm having trouble following your argument, if you had used quotes in your posts more liberally, I wouldn't have this problem. It all boils down to convenience, making double posts to "cheat" the quote limit system is more convenient than using text color.
Your team wins, you gain points.
Your team loses, you lose points.
The minimum number of points you can have is 0.
The number of points you gain is based on the average number of points of the opposite team compared against your number of points (or perhaps the average number of points of your team); and the same will be true of the number of points you lose.
Because of the nature of the system, when you have many points, you risk more points and stand to gain less points; while when you have less points, you risk less points but stand to gain more points.
There are only three categories in which you can gain/lose points (representing three entirely different playstyles): Commander, Alien, Marine.
What this suggestion encourages: playing to win by winning as a team through playing as a team.
It's pretty straightforward to me. What is it you have trouble understanding?
Necrosis.. I have trouble understanding why you place so much importance on ranking, and yet you're against it.
You say, 'why should the team be punished for their commander's actions' meaning you're actually placing an importance on rank/points.
But really, let's put that aside for a moment and look at it from another perspective.
If your commander is ######, and your team loses because of it, there's no punishment, right? Wrong. You just lost a game. There's your punishment right there. What's the ######ing difference?
Do you want the game to reward losses?
Do you want the game to only punish the 'bad players'? Where's the teamwork in that? You play as a team; then you win as a team or you lose as a team.
That's all there is to it.
This ranking system is essentially a weighted sum of teamwins and teamlosses of games you've personally participated in. Those who win often, and play often, are likely those that are both skilled and experienced. And for those that do not win often, or do not play often, they are likely those that are not skilled and/or inexperienced.
Also, I agree with aNytiMe about the quotes.
And don't get pedantic about what's irrelevant to the discussion. It's unbecoming.
edit: As for 'winning' and 'losing' the debate; I was only half serious. It was more that Firewater chose to give up, possibly because he knew his arguments weren't going anywhere; which was, imo, uncharacteristic of him - considering how vehemently (over many, many pages of threads) he has opposed certain suggestions, and advocated others.
And I'm sure Firewater is quite able to stand up for himself, Necrosis.
But its like telling someone with psychosis that the voices aren't real.
Using a win based system will not work because it ranks the Michael Jordan of the team equally as the individual who has done next to nothing.
The system is unreliable because it does not measure what it is supposed to measure: An individuals skill for purposes of balance.
You've attacked both me and Necrosis personally on this forums, then cry disappointment overall with the quality of the threads.
Do you not know what you are talking about? Or do you just have no problems with the incongruence of thinking and logic.
I'm gonna go with the latter.
For a good example, consider non-consequential marking in examinations. You do the right things, in the right order, but get the wrong answer. Points for method, but not for the final answer.
Marines should be awarded points in this way. If they follow orders, act like a team, play well, then they shouldn't be penalised because their comm blew it. Firstly, because they didn't do anything "wrong" to warrant a punishment, and secondly because penalising them for a poor comm will only lead to people staying out of the chair more than ever. Not conducive to the NS community at all.
Aliens have a shared responsibility, and are easier to punish because of that.
Problem is, you can't punish either side because of their unique styles. Aliens have a shared responsibility, and should not be treated more harshly because its easier to do. Likewise, Marines answer to their Comm, and should not be punished for a failure that they are largely powerless to correct.
Even if you kick the Comm from the chair, you're losing valuable minutes organising a vote and selecting a new and more competent Comm.
You cannot force people to play every aspect of the game. Some people can't Comm, some people won't Comm. I've been in games where players have openly mocked the Commander for having a young voice. Likewise, there are people who don't like playing Marines at all - they prefer Aliens. Naturally, others still will prefer Marines.
You cannot tell these paying customers that "sorry, you want to play here, then you need to get good with both races AND sitting in the chair". You are enforcing a very specific playstyle on them, and in a restricted ranked system then you are additionally forcing them out of servers.
Again, consider any other major game - you are not forced to play every BF team, or every weapon, or every Starcraft race, or both sides in Chess. You can happily stay on one side, forever.
This is the aspect of the system that we have been trying to address. The mechanics of how the system works are largely irrelevant, the problem is with the outcome. Which part of that confuses you?
Is it interesting that you have chosen to focus on the mechanics of how the system operates, rather than the much more pertinent problems regarding it's outcome.
Let me clarify my position on ranking, for your benefit. LOCAL ranking would be very handy for communities on a server by server basis. It's easier for people to keep track of, and it doesn't prevent you from playing elsewhere. GLOBAL ranking involves far more variables, and people are trying to link it to a restrictive system - something that would cripple the online community. In addition, I am opposed to the concept of restriction dictated by the game engine rather than community/admins. It is one thing for the guy running the server to kick you out, it is quite another for the game itself to refuse you admission in the first place.
Again, please note that a globally restrictive system has not been achieved in any online FPS game. I'm not even certain that it's ever been attempted, and I don't understand why anyone would even try it.
Marines don't play "as a team". The squaddies do, but their Comm calls the shots. You don't screw the squaddies over because their Commander dropped the ball.
The issue here is not to "reward" players. NS will never thrive in that sort of system, because it only ever leads to statpadding (barring the BF weapon unlock system).
You can't reward them, so by extension you cannot punish them.
You certainly CANNOT say "Well your Comm sucked, so now you're being kicked from the server because of it. Have a nice day, please buy the forthcoming NS2 expansion pack". You cannot do it.
You can't rank it on W:L either, because people on a regular server will quickly know which side to join when they connect. You can check the names and choose appropriately, or lurk in the readyroom until one side is getting a clear advantage. What is more, Commanders will be under even more pressure than usual. There will be no fun to playing, because people will be more concerned with making enough wins to keep them on their server. Not to mention, as FW pointed out, that you can be "rewarding" leeches who are looking for an easy win to keep their stats good.
Why would anyone in their right mind buy a game at retail that used the above system???
Don't get me wrong - some games involve people deliberately supporting their star players - but this is quite quite different to Lerking in a vent beside 3 DC and waiting for time to tick by between spams.
As for the alleged pedantry, seems a bit risible that you consider that unbecoming, but you're quite happy to openly flame away and justify it with "oh, but it was all in jest".
FW chose to leave a circular argument. So did the OP, from the look of it. I'm not "sticking up" for anyone, I'm just pointing out that if you're approaching a discussion on ranking systems as a "win/loss" situation, then you should really reassess your reasons for commenting.
This is not about any one person or group of person's preferences "winning", its about discussing what is best for our current and future community as a whole. Bear in mind that people will be outright purchasing NS2, and paying customers have a lot more clout than freegans or donators.
I can say, hand on heart, that NO paying player is going to subscribe to a system that forces them to play all sides, all weapons, all roles equally and at the same level just in order to access a regular server. None.
You may well say that people could go for the Unranked servers, but I would point you to earlier comments plus the quote from the company owning one of the largest market shares in online FPS games.
<!--quoteo(post=1677565:date=May 4 2008, 04:00 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 4 2008, 04:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So did the OP, from the look of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I refrain myself from posting because it's extremely time-consuming to try and answer you. I have to repeat myself over and over again and you constantly choose to ignore what I say.
I'm scolding myself for re-posting here even though I agreed on not to, but it's just too hard to keep on reading your nonsense and not straighten things up.
<!--quoteo(post=1677089:date=Apr 29 2008, 03:36 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Apr 29 2008, 03:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677089"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do believe FPS players are different from RTS players and RPG players. They're just completely different types of games where you have to spend time building your base/leveling your character before you're ready to compete. The lines have blurred a bit in recent years, but the core style of FPS gameplay which is jump right in the game and shoot things, is still prevalent.
Well, in my observations the "average" casual FPS player does not want to play a very long game. They don't want a time-commitment so much as a time-sink. A casual RPG player wants to see what kind of strange builds be can level his character with. A casual RTS player wants to build his base and try different strats. A casual FPS player wants to shoot virtual monsters ASAP.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing entirely. Nonetheless, I'd like to believe that a Natural Selection player is not that "average" casual FPS player. This hybrid game focuses so much on RTS elements that it requires, in my opinion, much more depth in gameplay (and therefore, in time-commitment) than most of the other FPS games.
I, for one, would like to have an FPS game with something more than "shooting virtual monsters ASAP" without the need to join a clan and having to plan beforehand when I can have a challenging and enjoyable session, such as a clan-match. I think recent FPS games have proved that there exists a community of players that crave something more out of their FPS games.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hm. How best to explain to someone who is using their fifth language. English happens to be my first, among many, and therefore comes with an accompanying level of skill. I use English because Latin doesn't really have many words for videogames, and certainly none that are taught in education. Of course, most people would be sufficiently aware that trying to debate cogently in their FIFTH ranked language would be an exercise in futility. Most people. At least it explains the contradictory Babel. I hate to break it to you, but you're not sufficiently capable of explaining your argument in your fifth language. Consider consulting a friend who has it somewhere within their top three, as it'll make your forum experience much richer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This time I will try not to comment on any of your puerile provocations, which are not only offensive but risible in so many levels. Despite the unsympathetic tone of your off-topic remarks, I hope others reading you will be as humored as me in your futile attempts to push others to the ground and boasting with your linguistic proficiency.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"How are they penalised for teamplay in this ranking system which is supposed to promote teamplay?"
"If his team loses, he would lose points for such actions."
WHAT THIS MEANS - You have said that they are not penalised, and then you state that they are penalised for a loss. This is called a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which means that each statement is invalidating the other. Get familiar with this word.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand how those quotes can make you think that I've said "that they are not penalised [...] for a loss"?
In the second quote, I'm telling you that they are penalized for a loss.
In the first quote, I'm asking you how people are penalized for <b>teamplay</b>. The fact that a team is not penalized for teamplay does not mean that they are not penalized for a loss, this seems obvious, right? A team which has great teamplay can still lose and get penalized.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->""If you win the match in a higher-ranked game ... you would be getting more points"
"I don't follow you? What are you getting a giant killer bonus for?"
WHAT THIS MEANS - You have said that a higher ranked game earns more points, then you state that there is no bonus for playing a higher rank. This is called a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which means that each statement is invalidating the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On a first note, I've never said that you do not get more points for playing a higher rank and those two quotes do not infer that either.
On a second note, this is not the first time you're quoting my <b>questions</b> and telling me that I'm making such and such <b>statements</b>. As you are so extremely picky with linguistics, I find it hard to believe that these are simple slip-ups; rather convenient and crude ways of making me say what you want me to say.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With regards to the W:L statements, you agree that one cannot rank on W:L alone, and then you state that this system is ranked on W:L. This is called a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which means that each statement is invalidating the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you quote the passage in which I supposedly "agree that one cannot rank on W:L alone"?
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->SupCom - There are numerous ways to cook the books, half of which rely on how the game calculated rank (you still haven't looked at the ELO system, sadly). One of which involves a bit of coordination with your partner. Of course, you'd have to be rank-happy to do them, but there's always someone...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure what you're implying here, but the only thing that comes to my mind is that you're claiming some players are tricking the automatching system to oppose partners in such a way that one of the partners could deliberately make his team lose, thus letting the other partner get an easy win.
Not only have I never seen such scenarios take place in Supreme Commander, but it is evidently something very impractical and improbable. Impractical, because you would need to find another way to level up the rank of one of the partners (this is to say the one that is losing intentionally) in order for the automatching system to select all partners in the same game. Improbable, since this kind of trickery would be fairly easily spotted by the players teamed up with the partner who loses on purpose.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Myth did not require teams. It didn't. Doesn't matter how complex it was, it didn't require players to work in concert. It rewarded those who did, certainly, but it wasn't a requirement to playing the game. NS requires a team. It requires other players. It is not an option for you to try, but a requirement you must observe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, so one game <b>requires</b> and the other <b>strongly recommends</b> having teams. Bringing this observation to the original point which was being made, it still makes both games very similar to each other and you would call them both team-based.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I quoted from EA, came from EA. If you don't believe it, go to the website. It's in English, but Babelfish should help you there. Now, since EA has one of the larger market shares in FPS games, specifically tactical ones involving commanders (BF2 onwards), I would think that they know more about how ranked and unranked play than someone who played an RTS for a bit and thinks it is the Second Coming. I like EA about as much as anyone else (ha ha ha) but you can't argue with the numbers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Speaking of Second Coming, you quote EA's text like an irreproachable holy book. EA having one of the larger market shares in FPS games does not mean they necessarily have the best ranking systems out there and that these systems could not be improved.
As I've already said, in my opinion FPS scoring systems have been utter failures so far and are uncomparable to the many functional RTS systems.
Also, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/074348.shtml" target="_blank">the EA boss himself has recently admitted that they "have a problem"</a>: <i>Like the movie industry, the videogame industry has become enamored with sequels which are generally seen as safe money makers. But the strategy hasn't really gone according to plan in either industry, as many highly touted sequels end up as busts, while the market as a whole suffers from the lack of creativity or daring. Of the videogame makers, perhaps no company has milked its franchises the way Electronic Arts has, as it pumps out new versions of its sports-based games every year. For a while, the company was a Wall Street darling, as its annual upgrades were seen as must haves for fans, giving the kind of regular subscription revenue that investors love to see. But the company's sales haven't been so hot of late, and it's finally recognizing that it's not creating much value by offering endless iterations of each game. <b><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->The new CEO admits that if the company doesn't do a better job in the innovation department, it's going to continue to suffer.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b> This is, of course, a lesson that Hollywood bosses have been reluctant to admit, even though it's been obvious for some time. Perhaps EA's willingness to be introspective is owed to the fact that it doesn't have piracy to blame for its problems. Although there's scant evidence that piracy is at the root of Hollywood's ills, the studios have been able to delude themselves into thinking that their problems are somehow out of their control.</i>
Maybe innovating the FPS ranking system would be one way to go?
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"I hope they make an NS2 where the glory for dropping hives all goes exclusively to you."
I should bloody well hope so, it costs enough res to drop the thing, and gorges get precious little respect as is. Or do you think that dropping a hive is worthless? Maybe you think both, which would be........ a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->contradiction<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do actually think both, without being contradictory. It is worthless if it does not contribute to your teamwin (for instance, if you already have enough hives).
I've suggested both possibilities numerous times: <i>the weight of the rank in match-making (be it automatic or manual) could entirely or partially be attributed to a specific category (such as commander, marines or aliens).</i>
In other words, you could base the entry to a server on overall points (this being the sum of all points in all categories) or (entirely or partially) on the points of the category you choose to play. However, if the latter option is used, the overall rank will loose in importance and would only have a symbolic value. Also, as you've already pointed out, players could eventually end up stacking the alien-side because marines get penalized by a lousy commander. This problem could be solved or at least palliated by giving the marines and commander an easier scoring (i.e. 10% more points in case of a win and 10% less points lost in case of a loss).
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why does your system punish teamplayers? Well for one, it hates gorges.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How come?
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For two, it hates people who play one side, but play that side very well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See above.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Finally, and for three, if a Marine team follows orders, builds, shoots, HA trains, and their Comm screws up, then you do not punish 5< players for ONE making a mistake that they are impotent to correct. Aliens are different - their capabilities are fundamentally equal. Marines and their Comm are fundamentally different - and you cannot punish the Marines for following the wrong orders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like you said yourself, Marines and their Commander are fundamentally different. The latter is a capital player for the whole marine-team. If he screws up, it makes kind of sense that the whole team suffers much more than if a simple marine would make a mistake.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>If ranking serves no purpose in server balance, then there is no point to having ranking.</b>
How many times? How many times? The first two times, you struggled with IF, and on your third attempt you manage to contradict yourself with regards to the use of the word imply. Here's a handy hint - if I think ranking served no point in server balance, I would say it. What I gave you is a logical process. IF it serves no purpose, then there is no need to have it. How can you not understand a fundamental logic statement?
Putting it at a more BASIC level - IF ranking serves no purpose, then there is no point to having it. Is that easier for you to grasp? Now, as a competent adult, I know that the above bolded statement is not a secret inference, but a conditional sentence. You're thinking of something like "Even children as young as 3 years of age can effectively perform simple logical inference tasks", which could infer that anyone who cannot perform them is mentally inferior to a 3 yr old. This would also cause them to be clinically diagnosed as suffering from mental retardation, or having learning difficulties. Of course, that relies on the person being able to understand the language that the simple logical inference task is framed in...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny. No, really, that's funny. You should play in a Comedy club called "The Persnickety Malaperts".
So, by the look of it, I guess you're right and I've misunderstood you from the very beginning. You never intended to infer anything of the sort and I simply made it up. The good news though is that <i>a contrario</i> you must then think that the ranking I've suggested does serve a purpose in server balance.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"you've never even played Myth?"
Not even a shred of evidence to support your claim? Tut tut.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tut tut at yourself. You're the one arrogating before I even answer.
For one, you've never said that you have played Myth, although it would obviously give a lot more weight to any of your comments relating to that game.
Also, you've never denied that you have not played Myth, although I invited you to "take a weekend, buy Myth II, test the game online".
Finally, you seem to suggest that you do not know how Myth's gameplay works by saying the following: "if Myth actually penalised players for their Leader's poor decisions, then it was a pretty poor system for encouraging teamplay."
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you find NS takes a "relatively long" time, on average the problem is that you're playing it wrongly or badly. That's a common enough problem, it happens quite a lot on the majority of servers. Your argument is flawed, since one may as well say that "NS takes as long to play as the average game of Snakes & Ladders" and try to balance the game accordingly (NS NEEDS MORE LADDERS, WTFBBQ).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I've already said, you really are a finicky wisecracker and, on top of that, you have a hard time to debate without making dubious shortcuts in your argumentation.
My argument stays perfectly valid, unlike yours, because one may not "as well say that ""NS takes as long to play as the average game of Snakes & Ladders"" and try to balance the game accordingly" since NS and Snakes & Ladders have no other points of comparison, unlike NS and Myth.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are misrepresenting Firewater, by the way. Just out of respect for a fellow forumer, let me remind you:
"The ranking system in battlefield 2 is just fine and dandy. Want to know why? The system does not attempt to balance teams based on leaderboard ranks."
Is that clear enough? BF2, BF2142, etc, does not ENFORCE BALANCE based on the leaderboard. You must be capable of understanding that "Encouraging Teamplay" is NOT THE SAME THING as "Enforce Balance". Those games encourage you to work togther, and many perks in fact ONLY work with squads - they do not force balanced play. Big world of difference, yes?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Following your reasoning is like struggling through an Escher's maze.
Here's the original text to which you are replying to: <i>If these games encourage teamplay through their scoring system, I don't see why the NS developers couldn't try to imitate them.
However, Firewater already said that the Battlefield ranking would be useless for balance purposes. If that is the case with Quake Wars as well, then there is no need to even mention the game, because as you said yourself: IF ranking is not used to balance servers, then why have it?</i>
So let me clear this out:
1. You and/or Firewater think that if ranking is not used to balance servers, there is no use having it.
2. You and/or Firewater think that Battlefield's ranking system is fine.
3. Battlefield's ranking system is not used to balance servers.
Can you see the dilemma linked to these 3 statements? I was not misrepresenting Firewater, just pointing out this particular problem. If you still think Battlefield's ranking system is fine, then you have to agree that ranking can also be used to encourage teamplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For the record, and since you really don't grasp logic, a bicycle is faster than a plane when they both have to travel down a 2ft wide tunnel. In a more conventional example, a plane with a 50 gallon tank of fuel will also fly approx 695 miles, then stop dead. A man on a bicycle can pedal comfortably at 20 mph, and will pass the stranded plane in around three days (8 hours of sleep, dont you know), no doubt waving cordially at the impotent pilot as he cycles past.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, but you forgot that the pilot has a rifle and takes down the man on the bicycle before he reaches the plane.
Anyway, debating is evidently not your forte if you have to take it down a path of endless possibilities.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When did I say that you said "a player gets points for a loss too". I think you'll find my quote was that wins and losses COUNT for points, which you have said numerous times. Do you remember? When you're penalising people for a loss? Or are you going to retract that now?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. You're unremittingly telling me that I'm lying while getting the accusatory facts wrong. You told me that I said "a player gets points for a loss too" in your 5th reply to this post: <i>You say a player only gets points for a team win, but then <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->you say that a player gets points for a loss too<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. Make your mind up, refine your point system, because at the moment it's less than babble.</i>
Wow, I didn't know EA was laying out the rules of modern servers.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for unranked servers..... don't take my word for it, ask FW, he's best qualified to give you examples of how proper competitive play compares to random pub.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By the way, I haven't stressed out this enough before, but there are players (such as myself) who are neither satisfied with random pubs nor competitive play.
Random pubs offer, like their name suggests, too random of a gameplay and chaotic gaming environments.
Competitive play requires too much involvement, time and skill.
A global ranking system would combine the benefits of both, without their drawbacks; it would permit easy access to somewhat competitive play and controlled environment, without demanding as much involvement, time and skill.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can't understand why people picking and choosing their opponents will make for poor global gameplay? Because people will only wany to pick opponents that give max reward for min risk. Its all very well saying a set of six top tier players risk losing 32 ranks when they play newbies, but the fact of the matter is that barring an act of Flayra, those six newbies are going to get ripped apart like a tin can. If you don't know why that would be a bad thing on a global level, then you don't really understand what makes multiplayer games fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that "people will only want to pick opponents that give max reward for min risk" is a key-element of this ranking system and is precisely what ensures balance on the servers (if match-making is not automatic). People will play against other people having the same rank as them. This is a warrant for <strike>poor</strike> good global gameplay.
There are several reasons why top tier players would not want to play against newbies:
- Some newbie players can be skilled (i.e. if it's a new account of a good player)
- Odds are that one or more of the top tier players will get disconnected in at least one of 32 sessions, making a loss more probable. And 1 loss equals 32 wins pointwise in this scenario. <i>Also have in mind that the 32 maximum points were a limit set in the Myth series, which could be increased in Natural Selection.</i>
- It takes enormous amounts of time to get any significant amount of points. <i>In Myth, one category of points would be reset to 0 every 1-3 months or so, making it impossible to have an unlimited amount of points in any category. In Natural Selection, such a reset would probably be most practical at sub-category levels.</i>
- As you said, it does not make multiplayer games fun.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In respect of RTS vs FPS disconnect punishments, the issue here is that in RTS games, you are responsible for your screwups, and you can generally do something about it. In NS, other people will screw up severely and you will be left to clean up the mess. Look closer - in an RTS, if my team buddy messes up, the worst I have to deal with is a 2v1 situation but at least I'll have the army I want. In NS, if my buddy screws up then he also effectively ruins the game for me too. It would be equivalent to your RTS partner "accidentally" wiping out your base and units 10 minutes in. Sure, you can recover from it, but you know you're going to lose unless your opponents screw up spectacularly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is preposterous. How can you pretend that a 2v1 situation in an RTS does not ruin the game for you? <i>A fortiori</i>, in a ranked game, how can you claim that the slightest screw-up from your teammate won't affect your game?
In any case, it is impertinent to compare what is an equivalent screw-up in NS and an RTS. The fact is that in both games you are responsible for your screwups, but you can't do much about your teammates mistakes. The other important fact is that the higher you are in ranks, the less probable it is for anyone to do any "game-ruining" mistakes.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By the way, neither FW or I are particularly stubborn. We're quote open to logical reasoning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You say you're not stubborn and open to logical reasoning, yet you blindly and persistently try to object everything I say. Proof of that once again just in the following quote.
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By the way, you ought to know that beta testing is INTENDED to find ways to break a game. Saying FW is "prejudiced" for wanting to do the job properly is just further evidence of your utter failure to grasp the issues at hand here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, we agree on the fact that beta-testing is "a field test of the beta version of a product (as software) especially by testers outside the company developing it that is conducted prior to commercial release" (<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beta-testing" target="_blank">Merriam Webster online dictionary</a>).
Do we also agree on the fact that prejudice is "a preconceived judgment or opinion" (<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice" target="_blank">Merriam Webster online dictionary</a>)?
You, however, think that someone saying "I hope I do beta-test your system because I want to show the developers first hand how broken it is" is not prejudicial? You do not think Firewater has a preconceived judgment or opinion concerning this ranking system when he clearly claims it is not functional before even having actually tested it? If that is the case, then tell me what is the purpose of beta-testing?
<!--quoteo(post=1677134:date=Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 29 2008, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677134"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Firewater</b> - You have to think down at that level -
"ranking: it's useless both for casual and competitive players"
There's a halfquote worth putting in a sig. I am quotings the passagings, nothing moreings, nothing lessings, unless it somehow alters the comprehensionings of my observationings. Wait, I can do better, "I adduce the segments I riposte to". For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest!!!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An eloquent mirror of your personality.
<!--quoteo(post=1677137:date=Apr 30 2008, 01:29 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Apr 30 2008, 01:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677137"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Based off the amount of variables that take place during the actual game, it would be crude to based a ranking system of wins/losses and expect a correlation of balance with said rankings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Win:Loss ratio encloses all the pertinent variables, unlike any other ratio.
<!--quoteo(post=1677144:date=Apr 30 2008, 04:02 AM:name=enigma)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(enigma @ Apr 30 2008, 04:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677144"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->tl;dr<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll edit the original post and insert the most important remarks in it.
<!--quoteo(post=1677340:date=May 1 2008, 07:06 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ May 1 2008, 07:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677340"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Don't let them get you down, flatrick. Thanks for the contribution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks. And don't worry, they're not getting to me...I'm just worried about the ranking system which will be implemented in NS2 and I hope it will be -if not this one- some system that works well with the game.
Yet you are in favor of "solutions, that integrate ranking into local balancing"?
Global ranking allows players, as its name implies, to join any servers with their status unchanged. Local balancing hampers players' free movement and divides them to groups of regulars on different local servers.
<!--quoteo(post=1677491:date=May 3 2008, 11:25 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 3 2008, 11:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677491"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Furthermore, you cannot create a system that FORCES players to play both sides equally. Again, when people pay money for a product, they should be fit to play it as they like.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notwithstanding that this ranking system does not necessarily force players to play both sides (see above about "the weight of the rank in match-making"), you seem to blissfully ignore that most games force players to play certain sides or do certain things.
If you want to see all the cinematics, stories and other content of a game, you often need to play all sides. As a recent commercially successful example, take Universe at War. You also need to complete all missions. As a recent commercially successful example, take Grand Theft Auto 4.
If you want to play with all the units, weapons and maps, you often need to unlock them. As a recent commercially successful example, take Grand Turismo 5 Prologue.
I could go on and on with examples of games forcing players to do things and still being bought by people. You could say that none of these locked elements are necessary for the game to be played, but I could say the same for the ranking. Also, note that even though a game does not force you to play all sides for you to go up in rank, it still is strongly recommended (since it gives you a much better insight to every side's strengths and weaknesses).
<!--quoteo(post=1677491:date=May 3 2008, 11:25 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 3 2008, 11:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677491"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Penalising a team for the action of their green commander is not only ridiculous, but discourages ANY new player from getting in the chair.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The team is penalized for the action of a green commander whether there is or isn't a ranking system such as this one. So, the intimidating aspect of playing such an important role has nothing to do with the ranking.
<!--quoteo(post=1677491:date=May 3 2008, 11:25 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 3 2008, 11:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677491"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->GLOBAL ranking involves far more variables<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does a global ranking involve more variables than a local ranking?
<!--quoteo(post=1677565:date=May 4 2008, 04:00 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 4 2008, 04:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In addition, I am opposed to the concept of restriction dictated by the game engine rather than community/admins. It is one thing for the guy running the server to kick you out, it is quite another for the game itself to refuse you admission in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you explain me what the benefit is of having an admin kicking a player not skilled enough for a server, staying afk or plainly misbehaving instead of an automatic system doing just that?
<!--quoteo(post=1677565:date=May 4 2008, 04:00 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 4 2008, 04:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, please note that a globally restrictive system has not been achieved in any online FPS game. I'm not even certain that it's ever been attempted, and I don't understand why anyone would even try it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never played any <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_first-person_shooter" target="_blank">Massively multiplayer online first-person shooters</a> but unless none of these games has any kind of automatic restrictive system, I'm pretty sure the players themselves achieve the same restrictive results, like in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMORTS" target="_blank">Massively multiplayer online real-time strategies</a> (i.e. Shattered Galaxies).
A classic online FPS could implement such a system for the numerous reasons that have already been stated.
<!--quoteo(post=1677565:date=May 4 2008, 04:00 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 4 2008, 04:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->The proposal is really quite ludicrous.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
For a good example, consider non-consequential marking in examinations. You do the right things, in the right order, but get the wrong answer. Points for method, but not for the final answer.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->Marines should be awarded points in this way. If they follow orders, act like a team, play well, then they shouldn't be penalised because their comm blew it. Firstly, because they didn't do anything "wrong" to warrant a punishment, and secondly because penalising them for a poor comm will only lead to people staying out of the chair more than ever. Not conducive to the NS community at all.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Aliens have a shared responsibility, and are easier to punish because of that.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->Problem is, you can't punish either side because of their unique styles. Aliens have a shared responsibility, and should not be treated more harshly because its easier to do. Likewise, Marines answer to their Comm, and should not be punished for a failure that they are largely powerless to correct.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Even if you kick the Comm from the chair, you're losing valuable minutes organising a vote and selecting a new and more competent Comm.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->You cannot force people to play every aspect of the game. Some people can't Comm, some people won't Comm.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> I've been in games where players have openly mocked the Commander for having a young voice. <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->Likewise, there are people who don't like playing Marines at all - they prefer Aliens. Naturally, others still will prefer Marines.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->You cannot tell these paying customers that "sorry, you want to play here, then you need to get good with both races AND sitting in the chair". You are enforcing a very specific playstyle on them, and in a restricted ranked system then you are additionally forcing them out of servers.
Again, consider any other major game - you are not forced to play every BF team, or every weapon, or every Starcraft race, or both sides in Chess. You can happily stay on one side, forever.
This is the aspect of the system that we have been trying to address. The mechanics of how the system works are largely irrelevant, the problem is with the outcome. Which part of that confuses you?
Is it interesting that you have chosen to focus on the mechanics of how the system operates, rather than the much more pertinent problems regarding it's outcome.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Let me clarify my position on ranking, for your benefit. LOCAL ranking would be very handy for communities on a server by server basis. It's easier for people to keep track of, and it doesn't prevent you from playing elsewhere. GLOBAL ranking involves far more variables, and people are trying to link it to a restrictive system - <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->something that would cripple the online community. In addition, I am opposed to the concept of restriction dictated by the game engine rather than community/admins. It is one thing for the guy running the server to kick you out, it is quite another for the game itself to refuse you admission in the first place.
Again, please note that a globally restrictive system has not been achieved in any online FPS game.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> I'm not even certain that it's ever been attempted, <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->and I don't understand why anyone would even try it.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Marines don't play "as a team". The squaddies do, but their Comm calls the shots. You don't screw the squaddies over because their Commander dropped the ball.
The issue here is not to "reward" players. NS will never thrive in that sort of system, because it only ever leads to statpadding (barring the BF weapon unlock system).
You can't reward them, so by extension you cannot punish them.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->You certainly CANNOT say "Well your Comm sucked, so now you're being kicked from the server because of it. Have a nice day, please buy the forthcoming NS2 expansion pack". You cannot do it.
You can't rank it on W:L either, because people on a regular server will quickly know which side to join when they connect. You can check the names and choose appropriately, or lurk in the readyroom until one side is getting a clear advantage. What is more, Commanders will be under even more pressure than usual. There will be no fun to playing, because people will be more concerned with making enough wins to keep them on their server. Not to mention, as FW pointed out, that you can be "rewarding" leeches who are looking for an easy win to keep their stats good.
Why would anyone in their right mind buy a game at retail that used the above system???<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Don't get me wrong - some games involve people deliberately supporting their star players - but this is quite quite different to Lerking in a vent beside 3 DC and waiting for time to tick by between spams.
As for the alleged pedantry, seems a bit risible that you consider that unbecoming, but you're quite happy to openly flame away and justify it with "oh, but it was all in jest".
FW chose to leave a circular argument. So did the OP, from the look of it. I'm not "sticking up" for anyone, I'm just pointing out that if you're approaching a discussion on ranking systems as a "win/loss" situation, then you should really reassess your reasons for commenting.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->This is not about any one person or group of person's preferences "winning", its about discussing what is best for our current and future community as a whole. Bear in mind that people will be outright purchasing NS2<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, and paying customers have a lot more clout than freegans or donators.
<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->I can say, hand on heart, that NO paying player is going to subscribe to a system that forces them to play all sides, all weapons, all roles equally and at the same level just in order to access a regular server. None.
You may well say that people could go for the Unranked servers, but I would point you to earlier comments plus the quote from the company owning one of the largest market shares in online FPS games.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I took the liberty to quote your whole last reply just to show you all the passages (in green) in which you repeat yourself (within the same post or in regard to a previous one). They add strictly nothing to your argumentation, nor do they clarify it in any way. In fact, these steadfast reiterations are just making your arguments a whole lot more difficult to follow.
Also, note that most of what is left (not in green) is pretty trivial. I hope you finally understand that you need to improve your debating-skills.
You're not realising that it balances out over a long-term period. In the short-term, there's obviously going to be problems. But that's the case with any ranking system. If someone is consistently on a winning team over a long period (or many games) that someone is likely a good player; or does nothing but is extremely lucky - unlikely.
<!--quoteo(post=1677549:date=May 4 2008, 05:16 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ May 4 2008, 05:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677549"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You've attacked both me and Necrosis personally on this forums, then cry disappointment overall with the quality of the threads.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never attacked anyone personally on this forum, since it wouldn't achieve anything. If you've taken offense from anything I've said, then that's on you.
One thing I've noticed. Sarisel, Firewater and Necrosis all use this argument: 'your logic is faulty' as if it's the Holy Grail of debate. None of them ever give sufficient evidence to support that, however. It's a form of personal attack that's really quite laughable. You guys really need to break out of the habit, it's poor form.