The start to creating a system that measures player ability, begins with the game reporting all actions, like for example, recording enough information that demos could exist.
From there, some minds might work on quantifying and grouping that data, comparing it relatively to as much data, in as many tangibly unique fashions as possible. From there you can group players with regards to the player base using these ability measurements.
This is a very simplistic explanation of a complex process, but, like minds, am I right?
Using ELO, or some user defined scoring system is is sloppy imo.
The point of such a system isn't to assign some user defined value to someone which is to be interpreted in some other user defined fashion. It compares player trends, and fits mathematical models to balance player data to make fair and cohesive teams. Like players who build as lot, with some who push the frontlines, some who support, etc.
Once again, this is a very basic explanation, and there are logical process I am leaving out, but I hope this fleshes what I've imagined, but never say down and worked on.
if you don't know how you stack up to other players after one game, i don't know how you're playing.
after one game, i have a pretty good idea how i stack up against the shooters or biters on the enemy team and a decent idea of those on my team, at least the ones i have to look out for. At least enough to get an idea of, better, worse, about the same.
@Kalabalana: I mean, look at the recent NSL finals. Marines positioned themselves to either cover all lanes going to their main, or position themselves to trap fleeing lifeforms, during the whole match. ( It is generally not in the main view and you kinda have to watch it yourself on the caster minimap which is not the best ). Aliens fades coordinating their attack is, of course, a bit easier to spot/quantify.
Map awareness also comes from what the player perceives. There are times when the player doesnt have the map opened, and thus has to take an educated guess on where the lifeforms are. Here comes skill and psychology, difficult to put a number on that.
@Kalabalana: I mean, look at the recent NSL finals. Marines positioned themselves to either cover all lanes going to their main, or position themselves to trap fleeing lifeforms, during the whole match. ( It is generally not in the main view and you kinda have to watch it yourself on the caster minimap which is not the best ). Aliens fades coordinating their attack is, of course, a bit easier to spot/quantify.
Map awareness also comes from what the player perceives. There are times when the player doesnt have the map opened, and thus has to take an educated guess on where the lifeforms are. Here comes skill and psychology, difficult to put a number on that.
Difficult indeed, my original response was not a negation of your previous statement.
The point is not to attach a value to such actions, but to look for them. If you can tangibly express a situation through the way the data is interpreted, team play factors like this can be recorded, and the data used in any fashion you can imagine.
I believe applying any point value to such an action inherently lowers it's comparative value relative to how it exists it in the rest of the player base.
I have a very different approach to gauging player ability than conventional point/score/kill based models.
Comments
From there, some minds might work on quantifying and grouping that data, comparing it relatively to as much data, in as many tangibly unique fashions as possible. From there you can group players with regards to the player base using these ability measurements.
This is a very simplistic explanation of a complex process, but, like minds, am I right?
Using ELO, or some user defined scoring system is is sloppy imo.
The point of such a system isn't to assign some user defined value to someone which is to be interpreted in some other user defined fashion. It compares player trends, and fits mathematical models to balance player data to make fair and cohesive teams. Like players who build as lot, with some who push the frontlines, some who support, etc.
Once again, this is a very basic explanation, and there are logical process I am leaving out, but I hope this fleshes what I've imagined, but never say down and worked on.
after one game, i have a pretty good idea how i stack up against the shooters or biters on the enemy team and a decent idea of those on my team, at least the ones i have to look out for. At least enough to get an idea of, better, worse, about the same.
You'd be surprised what can be found in enough data if you know where to look, and how
But I often shoot at a vent just to ward off aliens. Then if they run off it gives me time to build something.
Map awareness also comes from what the player perceives. There are times when the player doesnt have the map opened, and thus has to take an educated guess on where the lifeforms are. Here comes skill and psychology, difficult to put a number on that.
If in doubt whether to use "me" or "I", use the sentence without third person forms. "Hard for I" makes no sense, therefore it's "hard for me".
Difficult indeed, my original response was not a negation of your previous statement.
The point is not to attach a value to such actions, but to look for them. If you can tangibly express a situation through the way the data is interpreted, team play factors like this can be recorded, and the data used in any fashion you can imagine.
I believe applying any point value to such an action inherently lowers it's comparative value relative to how it exists it in the rest of the player base.
I have a very different approach to gauging player ability than conventional point/score/kill based models.