Rate Commander after a match?
Price
Join Date: 2003-09-27 Member: 21247Members
Join Date: 2003-09-27 Member: 21247Members
<div class="IPBDescription">no not like BF and stuff...</div>If it is possible with steam or your game, every player can rate the commander after a round is done.
For example if a round is over: Vote started
Did you like, how the commander played?
1. Yes
2. No
3. no idea (neutral) [maybe not an option]
So every player has a star after his name.
If he got for example 90 good and 10 bad ratings, the star is 90% yellow with 10% red.
Or simple you got red and yellow stars or a smilie... if you got over 20 bad ratings, you get a red star, if you play good and all players like how you play, it can change fast to yellow <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
So every player can see how the commander was in other matches?!
Edit:
To prevent punish newbies or "noobs" the rating system starts after a player was 3 rounds a commander.
So after his fourth round, he can be rated
For example if a round is over: Vote started
Did you like, how the commander played?
1. Yes
2. No
3. no idea (neutral) [maybe not an option]
So every player has a star after his name.
If he got for example 90 good and 10 bad ratings, the star is 90% yellow with 10% red.
Or simple you got red and yellow stars or a smilie... if you got over 20 bad ratings, you get a red star, if you play good and all players like how you play, it can change fast to yellow <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
So every player can see how the commander was in other matches?!
Edit:
To prevent punish newbies or "noobs" the rating system starts after a player was 3 rounds a commander.
So after his fourth round, he can be rated
Comments
I'd rather the game be more accepting to new people. Everyone was new once and learning at one stage.
Like after a round, players go back to the Ready Room. All of the Marine team would recieve a message like "Press F5 to leave a review of the Commander." And then a box would come up allowing players to share their thoughts on the commander and they could select a positive, negative, or neutral rating.
So when the commander enters the chair in another game, it could say, "<b>Slayer</b> is the Commander with <b>26 positive votes</b>, <b>13 negative votes</b>, and <b>17 neutral votes</b>."
I think the commander rating system could be reset for each player after one week. That way numbers wouldn't get so high like 1293801, and if people spammed the user with bad votes, it would all go away, and they could start over new again.
I suppose everyone player is going to have some kind of ranking list or something and it could show the total number of positive, negative, and neutral votes.
I'd rather the game be more accepting to new people. Everyone was new once and learning at one stage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats why i have overruled my idea with the voting who can be commander.
its just rating...new people can be commander, if they play bad, they get bad and maybe some good ratings.
So he play again and he play good, he get good ratings and all will be fine.
Every player can be good, just by training!
Maybe the Rating system just starts if a player was 3 rounds commander <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
New comms should play on newbie servers, or at the very least not in the pro hangouts.
(and I'm not saying this out of elitism, it's just that a newb comm on a pro server would ruin the game for everyone, including himself and the alien team)
Issue #1 - The marine team most often (80% of the time) contains 1 or 2 obnoxious players that don't want to go Comm, but expect the Comm to perform to their extreme expectations. If he doesn't, abuse ensues.
Issue #2 - Commander gets blamed for lost games
Issue #3 - Due to #1 and #2, jumping in the comm chair is more trouble than it's worth.
Solution 1... I'd like to see the game interface minimise or eliminate the ability for a player to grief the commander.
Solution 2... I'd like to see that the 1st 5-10 seconds of a game have people apply for comm chair.
Solution 3... I'd like the game to be aware of who the better Comm is. .. and give him priority
These solutions make for a better experience because:
Anyone who starts the game in the comm chair is pretty confident that even though they might not be an experienced Comm, they're at least the best out of the people who wanted to go comm this game...
Better Commanders get priority. Even during the course of the game, if a better commander is sick of playing the FPS role, he can run up to the comm chair and 'USE'. This starts a vote, and the better the player's rank against the current comm, the less votes he needs. "Allow 'BANANAS' to take over command? 0 of 2 votes out of 13 players required". If the person who want's in is a worse rank... then he needs majority votes "Allow NSPlayer to take over command? 0 of 7 votes out of 13 players required". This stops childless voting, and makes you put your money where your vote key is.
As for ranking, There needs to be a way to avoid abuse. I think a better ranking scheme would have the server rank the commander performance, not the players. At the end of a comm session, the game creates a percentage of efficiency based on your choices as commander. Include factors such as
Total time in chair (More time equals better rank weighting. Calculated so that an efficient commander who has played 10 hours is still better than a wasteful commander who's played 30 hours)
Communication (Time using Mic... Have a good balance... Don't talk too little, don't spam it up)
Direction (Waypoints given... Spammy waypointing loses points, no waypoints loses points, but just the right amount gets you a better score)
Efficiency (Based on resource usage... good balance between res spent in research and res spent on medpacks/weapons/ammo and res spent on structures)
Win/lose ratio (Balanced with the next factor)
Team skill (These last two factors should compliment each other. Losing a game shouldn't hurt a commander if the players are terrible, but winning a game shouldn't reward the comm if the enemy is crap either)
When you exit the chair, these factors are tallied, and the game gives you a percentage (70% efficient). This would average out over time, and more recent experience counts for more (Last week I had an average of 60% efficiency, this week I'm getting 80%... this should rank me at 75% overall, and maybe next week my 60% performance gets forgotten)
The idea is that just because you play the game 16 hours a day and get to comm for most of that, you don't get a monopoly.
And rather than having a centralised BF2 style account... even just have the current server you're on keep score. Let each comm build a repuation with the server before having any kind of authority. You might be great, but if the server hasn't seen you before, whats wrong with putting a game or two in to build some authority? If the game is ranking you on efficiency primarily, it won't take long for you to get a good rank.
Issue #1 - The marine team most often (80% of the time) contains 1 or 2 obnoxious players that don't want to go Comm, but expect the Comm to perform to their extreme expectations. If he doesn't, abuse ensues.
Issue #2 - Commander gets blamed for lost games
Issue #3 - Due to #1 and #2, jumping in the comm chair is more trouble than it's worth.
Solution 1... I'd like to see the game interface minimise or eliminate the ability for a player to grief the commander.
Solution 2... I'd like to see that the 1st 5-10 seconds of a game have people apply for comm chair.
Solution 3... I'd like the game to be aware of who the better Comm is. .. and give him priority
These solutions make for a better experience because:
Anyone who starts the game in the comm chair is pretty confident that even though they might not be an experienced Comm, they're at least the best out of the people who wanted to go comm this game...
Better Commanders get priority. Even during the course of the game, if a better commander is sick of playing the FPS role, he can run up to the comm chair and 'USE'. This starts a vote, and the better the player's rank against the current comm, the less votes he needs. "Allow 'BANANAS' to take over command? 0 of 2 votes out of 13 players required". If the person who want's in is a worse rank... then he needs majority votes "Allow NSPlayer to take over command? 0 of 7 votes out of 13 players required". This stops childless voting, and makes you put your money where your vote key is.
As for ranking, There needs to be a way to avoid abuse. I think a better ranking scheme would have the server rank the commander performance, not the players. At the end of a comm session, the game creates a percentage of efficiency based on your choices as commander. Include factors such as
Total time in chair (More time equals better rank weighting. Calculated so that an efficient commander who has played 10 hours is still better than a wasteful commander who's played 30 hours)
Communication (Time using Mic... Have a good balance... Don't talk too little, don't spam it up)
Direction (Waypoints given... Spammy waypointing loses points, no waypoints loses points, but just the right amount gets you a better score)
Efficiency (Based on resource usage... good balance between res spent in research and res spent on medpacks/weapons/ammo and res spent on structures)
Win/lose ratio (Balanced with the next factor)
Team skill (These last two factors should compliment each other. Losing a game shouldn't hurt a commander if the players are terrible, but winning a game shouldn't reward the comm if the enemy is crap either)
When you exit the chair, these factors are tallied, and the game gives you a percentage (70% efficient). This would average out over time, and more recent experience counts for more (Last week I had an average of 60% efficiency, this week I'm getting 80%... this should rank me at 75% overall, and maybe next week my 60% performance gets forgotten)
The idea is that just because you play the game 16 hours a day and get to comm for most of that, you don't get a monopoly.
And rather than having a centralised BF2 style account... even just have the current server you're on keep score. Let each comm build a repuation with the server before having any kind of authority. You might be great, but if the server hasn't seen you before, whats wrong with putting a game or two in to build some authority? If the game is ranking you on efficiency primarily, it won't take long for you to get a good rank.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good suggestions, but how will the server evaluate all of those things ? How can it know if the enemy team was bad-middle-good, if he was spending resources wisely (that can be very different depending on the strat being used), and the Direction part would have to be evaluated given the context of the entire game since a commander controlling a skilled team may not need to issue direct commands.
An automatic rating system wouldn't work well enough (I think)... besides I think palyers shouldn't be rated by commander skill since it would most likely mean that newbies would never get a chance at commanding.
Communication (Time using Mic... Have a good balance... Don't talk too little, don't spam it up)
Direction (Waypoints given... Spammy waypointing loses points, no waypoints loses points, but just the right amount gets you a better score)
Efficiency (Based on resource usage... good balance between res spent in research and res spent on medpacks/weapons/ammo and res spent on structures)
Win/lose ratio (Balanced with the next factor)
Team skill (These last two factors should compliment each other. Losing a game shouldn't hurt a commander if the players are terrible, but winning a game shouldn't reward the comm if the enemy is crap either)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What makes a good comm. or a bad comm. is way too subjective for a computer to calculate a "how good this comm. is" rating accurately. It'd be much closer if the players just voted, even with griefers.
I used to play a lot, until I got good enough to the point where every admin thought I was hacking. At this point, I ended up getting banned from all the decent servers.
This happened to occur with every good player in NS, and the competitive level of NS died. Because all the hardcore NS gamers would quit since they were banned from all the decent servers.
If you implement ranks, icons for various accomplishments, or anything that would justify a player to be "actually good" and not a hacker, then this game will go far.
I started playing NS since day one on 1.0. The game progressed, up until 2.0 and shortly after, the competitive NS community began to disappear. All the good players were banned. Pretty lame.
Also, there should be some easier way to provide proof for hackers. BC, I had so many demos recorded with proof of players hacking, and couldn't do anything about it.
rates you on a number of things,
marines following waypoints
successful skirmishes
how quickly you respond to requests
how quickly you reach certain tech points
how quickly you get to a decent resource rate
this is already done in a number of rts games
i could see this feature being added to the game after release
rates you on a number of things,
marines following waypoints
successful skirmishes
how quickly you respond to requests
how quickly you reach certain tech points
how quickly you get to a decent resource rate
this is already done in a number of rts games
i could see this feature being added to the game after release<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that those scores rarely tell the truth about the game in RTS games. In addition, most NS1 level games were easily won with basic game sense, which is next to impossible to address with any algorhitm. Even further, a lot of commanding is co-operating with marines. You can't capture than in a score ratio either.