Undesirable how? Pub stomping? Because only a misunderstanding of the skill number should be able to lead to that. Assuming that the skill is calculated properly (anything that considers k/d is not proper) then there shouldn't be anything people can do to increase it that doesn't actually boil down to playing better.
I am 100% behind showing the skill number or skill ranking (that level shit is confusing and pointless though), assuming it works correctly. I personally spent hundreds of hours working to achieve a top 100 ranking when I played UT3 and not only did I enjoy the game more for it I also improved myself more as a player than I could have otherwise.
So a half decent skill system and bunch it with a system that calculates how much skill you should earn based on the total skill of each team? That what u meant to say? Sorry I'm hyper concise.
There's no need to bring playtime into the equation Neoken. Skill varies too much between players of similar playtime for it to matter. Winrate simply weighted by the average skill of the teams is all you really need.
Ok, let me clarify. I meant you could have a player level value which represents your total playtime (play more, get more levels, thus a simple progression system for those who like that sort of thing), and a player skill value which basically represents your winrate, but adjusted by how much the teams were stacked or not (win more, get higher skill, but only if your team is not stacked). So it's sort of ELO-like.
Then you could for instance see a low level player with a high skill value, meaning it's an inexperienced player who is still performing better than average. Or you could have a high level player with a low skill value, meaning he's pretty experienced player, but not as decisive in getting the wins. So, in general, by dumping factors like K/D out of the equation, just using playtime and winrate values, and most importantly adjusting for teamstacks, you could probably describe a more meaningful picture of player competence than the current system does.
Anyway, just thought it could be somewhat of a midway between what we have now and what people have been proposing.
So a half decent skill system and bunch it with a system that calculates how much skill you should earn based on the total skill of each team? That what u meant to say? Sorry I'm hyper concise.
There's no need to bring playtime into the equation Neoken. Skill varies too much between players of similar playtime for it to matter. Winrate simply weighted by the average skill of the teams is all you really need.
Ok, let me clarify. I meant you could have a player level value which represents your total playtime (play more, get more levels, thus a simple progression system for those who like that sort of thing), and a player skill value which basically represents your winrate, but adjusted by how much the teams were stacked or not (win more, get higher skill, but only if your team is not stacked). So it's sort of ELO-like.
Then you could for instance see a low level player with a high skill value, meaning it's an inexperienced player who is still performing better than average. Or you could have a high level player with a low skill value, meaning he's pretty experienced player, but not as decisive in getting the wins. So, in general, by dumping factors like K/D out of the equation, just using playtime and winrate values, and most importantly adjusting for teamstacks, you could probably describe a more meaningful picture of player competence than the current system does.
Anyway, just thought it could be somewhat of a midway between what we have now and what people have been proposing.
I still don't understand why you want to bring playtime into it. Someone with 50 hours could be just as skilled and even knowledgeable as someone with 1000 hours. Maybe they played NS1 or comp only or maybe the guy with 1000 just never took it seriously and the guy with 50 spent time actually researching the game or watching streams or something. The point is that time means nothing at all other than for filtering rookies who haven't logged enough games to be ranked on skill, and even then there are occasional greens who outplay me (700+ hours here), whether they are smurfs or just really good FPSers I don't know.
Taking playtime into account is stupid because that will just encourage people to sit in the menu to increase their playtime. If you make it have to be on a server then it'll end up with people sitting in the ready room. If you make it have to be in a game then there will be people sitting afk. Even if you implement an auto kicker that's still a slot taken up early in the game which would ruin the game. Counting playtime is a silly thing to do, especially if playtime weights the "skill" of the player.
I've got 500 hours in this game and I would say my abilities are reasonable at marine, kinda terrible at aliens (I don't like alien gameplay so I don't try). But any skilled player with 500 hours would absolutely destroy me.
@sotanaht, yeah, I'm that guy who doesn't take the game seriously.
So a half decent skill system and bunch it with a system that calculates how much skill you should earn based on the total skill of each team? That what u meant to say? Sorry I'm hyper concise.
There's no need to bring playtime into the equation Neoken. Skill varies too much between players of similar playtime for it to matter. Winrate simply weighted by the average skill of the teams is all you really need.
Ok, let me clarify. I meant you could have a player level value which represents your total playtime (play more, get more levels, thus a simple progression system for those who like that sort of thing), and a player skill value which basically represents your winrate, but adjusted by how much the teams were stacked or not (win more, get higher skill, but only if your team is not stacked). So it's sort of ELO-like.
Then you could for instance see a low level player with a high skill value, meaning it's an inexperienced player who is still performing better than average. Or you could have a high level player with a low skill value, meaning he's pretty experienced player, but not as decisive in getting the wins. So, in general, by dumping factors like K/D out of the equation, just using playtime and winrate values, and most importantly adjusting for teamstacks, you could probably describe a more meaningful picture of player competence than the current system does.
Anyway, just thought it could be somewhat of a midway between what we have now and what people have been proposing.
I still don't understand why you want to bring playtime into it. Someone with 50 hours could be just as skilled and even knowledgeable as someone with 1000 hours. Maybe they played NS1 or comp only or maybe the guy with 1000 just never took it seriously and the guy with 50 spent time actually researching the game or watching streams or something. The point is that time means nothing at all other than for filtering rookies who haven't logged enough games to be ranked on skill, and even then there are occasional greens who outplay me (700+ hours here), whether they are smurfs or just really good FPSers I don't know.
there should be absolutely no greens that outplayed you... if they did, it's smurfing, or you're truly terribad. green is still deactivated automatically after 10 hours right?
Is it me or the stats are just outdated?
Last seen = November 2...
I just did some games... And the week before that...
Depends on the server and whether or not it's enabled on hive. I know my stats list games I played yesterday, and a number of games spread out between now and nov 15
So a half decent skill system and bunch it with a system that calculates how much skill you should earn based on the total skill of each team? That what u meant to say? Sorry I'm hyper concise.
There's no need to bring playtime into the equation Neoken. Skill varies too much between players of similar playtime for it to matter. Winrate simply weighted by the average skill of the teams is all you really need.
Ok, let me clarify. I meant you could have a player level value which represents your total playtime (play more, get more levels, thus a simple progression system for those who like that sort of thing), and a player skill value which basically represents your winrate, but adjusted by how much the teams were stacked or not (win more, get higher skill, but only if your team is not stacked). So it's sort of ELO-like.
Then you could for instance see a low level player with a high skill value, meaning it's an inexperienced player who is still performing better than average. Or you could have a high level player with a low skill value, meaning he's pretty experienced player, but not as decisive in getting the wins. So, in general, by dumping factors like K/D out of the equation, just using playtime and winrate values, and most importantly adjusting for teamstacks, you could probably describe a more meaningful picture of player competence than the current system does.
Anyway, just thought it could be somewhat of a midway between what we have now and what people have been proposing.
I still don't understand why you want to bring playtime into it. Someone with 50 hours could be just as skilled and even knowledgeable as someone with 1000 hours. Maybe they played NS1 or comp only or maybe the guy with 1000 just never took it seriously and the guy with 50 spent time actually researching the game or watching streams or something. The point is that time means nothing at all other than for filtering rookies who haven't logged enough games to be ranked on skill, and even then there are occasional greens who outplay me (700+ hours here), whether they are smurfs or just really good FPSers I don't know.
there should be absolutely no greens that outplayed you... if they did, it's smurfing, or you're truly terribad. green is still deactivated automatically after 10 hours right?
I've dealt with it twice. One who I'm almost positive was smurfing and another who claims he was just pro at other FPS (UT I think, not his words). Both were on marines though, strategy for marines on the ground is very very simple in pubs so it's not impossible to believe someone would be able to pick it up and play it if they were already very skilled at shooting fast and erratic targets. Of course the possibility of hacks also exists but I'm not making accusations.
What this game needs is a ranked game mode, separate to pub games. With Leagues/Divs and stuff. The skill should really only go off that, rather than games people join to have fun and stuff. I would like to think UWE have this planned, and the hive rating showing up is their way of saying 'we have been working towards this'?
What this game needs is a ranked game mode, separate to pub games. With Leagues/Divs and stuff. The skill should really only go off that, rather than games people join to have fun and stuff. I would like to think UWE have this planned, and the hive rating showing up is their way of saying 'we have been working towards this'?
That's exactly the case. Current hive ratings are probably just going to be used for initial placement in the eventual matchmaking system that is confirmed to be in the works scheduled for "medium term".
blindJoin Date: 2010-04-17Member: 71437Members, Squad Five Gold
Looked up my Hive account out of curiousity. For the matches I lost against Godar my skill was determined 150, for playing on UWE Official server (kinda farming newbs) I received 1400. Seems legit.
Is it me or the stats are just outdated?
Last seen = November 2...
I just did some games... And the week before that...
Depends on the server and whether or not it's enabled on hive. I know my stats list games I played yesterday, and a number of games spread out between now and nov 15
So a half decent skill system and bunch it with a system that calculates how much skill you should earn based on the total skill of each team? That what u meant to say? Sorry I'm hyper concise.
There's no need to bring playtime into the equation Neoken. Skill varies too much between players of similar playtime for it to matter. Winrate simply weighted by the average skill of the teams is all you really need.
Ok, let me clarify. I meant you could have a player level value which represents your total playtime (play more, get more levels, thus a simple progression system for those who like that sort of thing), and a player skill value which basically represents your winrate, but adjusted by how much the teams were stacked or not (win more, get higher skill, but only if your team is not stacked). So it's sort of ELO-like.
Then you could for instance see a low level player with a high skill value, meaning it's an inexperienced player who is still performing better than average. Or you could have a high level player with a low skill value, meaning he's pretty experienced player, but not as decisive in getting the wins. So, in general, by dumping factors like K/D out of the equation, just using playtime and winrate values, and most importantly adjusting for teamstacks, you could probably describe a more meaningful picture of player competence than the current system does.
Anyway, just thought it could be somewhat of a midway between what we have now and what people have been proposing.
I still don't understand why you want to bring playtime into it. Someone with 50 hours could be just as skilled and even knowledgeable as someone with 1000 hours. Maybe they played NS1 or comp only or maybe the guy with 1000 just never took it seriously and the guy with 50 spent time actually researching the game or watching streams or something. The point is that time means nothing at all other than for filtering rookies who haven't logged enough games to be ranked on skill, and even then there are occasional greens who outplay me (700+ hours here), whether they are smurfs or just really good FPSers I don't know.
there should be absolutely no greens that outplayed you... if they did, it's smurfing, or you're truly terribad. green is still deactivated automatically after 10 hours right?
I've dealt with it twice. One who I'm almost positive was smurfing and another who claims he was just pro at other FPS (UT I think, not his words). Both were on marines though, strategy for marines on the ground is very very simple in pubs so it's not impossible to believe someone would be able to pick it up and play it if they were already very skilled at shooting fast and erratic targets. Of course the possibility of hacks also exists but I'm not making accusations.
Also, I thought it was 4 hours.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with 10,it was 4 last I remembered.
Looked up my Hive account out of curiousity. For the matches I lost against Godar my skill was determined 150, for playing on UWE Official server (kinda farming newbs) I received 1400. Seems legit.
well, that's because Godar is uber noob obviously, the numbers back me up
Looked up my Hive account out of curiousity. For the matches I lost against Godar my skill was determined 150, for playing on UWE Official server (kinda farming newbs) I received 1400. Seems legit.
well, that's because Godar is uber noob obviously, the numbers back me up
He probably performed really badly, low KDR or whatever. Sounds like the metrics aren't any good.
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
My skill level is now 115. I keep starting servers at home for my mod pg, and run around killing myself through rocket jumps, seems it is damaging my skill ability.
Funny to see it change and I haven't played vanilla NS2 yet
This is a much needed component that ns2 has been lacking since its inception. Glad to see mine and others posts on this did in fact get noticed!
To all the naysayers, yes the system could allow people to manipulate stats to play in a class they do not belong in but for the most part this will help a lot. Not to mention, if you have played any pubs lately, it cannot possibly get any worse than it currently is.. if I play 10 games 9 are complete blowouts from stacks and maybe 1 has some back and forth where the game outcome is not decided at 3 minutes or less.
Cannon_FodderAUSBrisbane, AUJoin Date: 2013-06-23Member: 185664Members, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Reinforced - Shadow
@joederp. Seems like that lately. My only beef with this is, commanders don't get ranked. So I am forever stuck on my current skill (I comm alot on pubs), because I would rather comm than sit around for 5 minutes waiting for someone to jump in. Not to mention the greens sometimes jump in, then log out because they realise they have no idea what to do, you can't have no commander in the first minute as marine.
Looked up my Hive account out of curiousity. For the matches I lost against Godar my skill was determined 150, for playing on UWE Official server (kinda farming newbs) I received 1400. Seems legit.
well, that's because Godar is uber noob obviously, the numbers back me up
He probably performed really badly, low KDR or whatever. Sounds like the metrics aren't any good.
It should run on every server by default. The first stat duty and obstacle is harvesting data... As much a one can.
Then sorting, throwing spurts aside and work with what's left.
If i spend all the games i play on a server that just don't send stats, i'll never get anything. Even if i end up with a nasty bastard skulk score like 50:1...
I'm also disappointed by the fact that commanders don't really get anything while they are the most skilled of them all. I don't remember seeing score getting up after passing the whole day commanding on UWE servers.
While there is a clear lack of commanders for one. It should be a little more interesting to motivate new players to learn and command when ready.
It should run on every server by default. The first stat duty and obstacle is harvesting data... As much a one can.
Then sorting, throwing spurts aside and work with what's left.
a) it runs on every unmodded server and servers with ns2 stats
b) it takes 50 rounds from a server to show up there, and the server must be whitelisted
We all argee to say taht skill number in its actual state obviously rewards noob farming.
But I think the K/D ratio must be part of the skill number, especially as a marine or higher lifeforms : A marine who stays alive and get kills without being killed is important for map presence. A Fade who harvests solo marines without overcomitting and staying alive is a huge role too.
And killing a noob skulk shouldn't be as rewarding as killing a very skilled skulk. Killing a noob fade shouldn't be very rewarding either. In the other hand, getting a very positive K/D ratio as a gorge sould be more rewarded than the K/D ratio of an early lerk or a fade or an onos.
....for exemple, you are rated 700.
-Killing a skulk skilled at 100 will give you +0,1.
-Killing a skulk skilled at 400 will give you +0,4.
-Killing a skulk skilled at 700 will give you +1.
-but Killing a skulk skilled at 1000 will give you +2 or +3.
In the opposite,
-being killed by a skulk skilled at 100 will give you -5 or 10.
-being killed by a skulk skilled at 700 will give you -1.
--being killed by a skulk skilled at 1000 will give you -0,2 or -0,3.
I think we should balance the K/D around you individual skill and the skill of your opponent, and the lifeform you are using, the weapon...etc.
I disagree. Win/lose is the only pure way to do it. While that pro player is holding the front line getting lots of frags, the guy building the rts behind is doing just as important a job, as is the guy building the obs in base before mining up and moving to reinforce. It's a team game, and the best teams are those that work together to win.
And it should still be hidden.
Yep, W/L with the elo system will work. Just going to need a lot of games for the rating to level itself true (oh boy it's LoL frustration from idiots all over again). Also it should really be split into three 'ladders' 6v6, more than 6v6 but less than 9v9, more then 8v8.
I disagree. Win/lose is the only pure way to do it. [...]
Do you realize the amount of game needed per players to have a correct elo balance ? Hundreds ? Maybe thousands. Plus, in pubs 2 rookie players can make the entire team lose, 1 monster vet can make his own team win (if medpacked).
Pure W/L ratio is very significant in comp play. And the competitive play doesn't need such a ranking system. I think Elo ranking MUST be designed for pub play, where the difference between skills is so huge we can't bind ranking on W/L ratio...
While that pro player is holding the front line getting lots of frags, the guy building the rts behind is doing just as important a job, as is the guy building the obs in base before mining up and moving to reinforce. It's a team game, and the best teams are those who work together to win.
Of course you are right ^^. This is why I love that game. Based around teamplay and splitting tasks among players in your team. And when everyone fully understands what to do, even a lost game is a beautiful game
But the builder must know how to place well to see and react when attacked by a lone skulk. He must know how to feint to start building and bait skulks. That skill is measured by the fact he survives the engagement when attacked, if he kills the skulk before he dies. Basicaly, K/D ratio.
Looked up my Hive account out of curiousity. For the matches I lost against Godar my skill was determined 150, for playing on UWE Official server (kinda farming newbs) I received 1400. Seems legit.
Clearly the worst player on my team, yet one of the higher skill ratings. Seems spot on to me.
Oh right, so we should all be the ones at the front then? How do you think a game of soccer would work with 11 strikers? Or an American football match with an entire team of quarterbacks? Or a game of cricket with a team of bowlers?
A team who works together to win should be rewarded together for that win. It will even out over time.
Oh right, so we should all be the ones at the front then? How do you think a game of soccer would work with 11 strikers? Or an American football match with an entire team of quarterbacks? Or a game of cricket with a team of bowlers?
A team who works together to win should be rewarded together for that win. It will even out over time.
While I completely agree with you, I'd rather have a team of 6 sharp shooters who can temporarily fulfil supporting roles when needed, than a team where any one person isnt capable of holding their own.
Comments
I am 100% behind showing the skill number or skill ranking (that level shit is confusing and pointless though), assuming it works correctly. I personally spent hundreds of hours working to achieve a top 100 ranking when I played UT3 and not only did I enjoy the game more for it I also improved myself more as a player than I could have otherwise.
Ok, let me clarify.
Then you could for instance see a low level player with a high skill value, meaning it's an inexperienced player who is still performing better than average. Or you could have a high level player with a low skill value, meaning he's pretty experienced player, but not as decisive in getting the wins. So, in general, by dumping factors like K/D out of the equation, just using playtime and winrate values, and most importantly adjusting for teamstacks, you could probably describe a more meaningful picture of player competence than the current system does.
Anyway, just thought it could be somewhat of a midway between what we have now and what people have been proposing.
I still don't understand why you want to bring playtime into it. Someone with 50 hours could be just as skilled and even knowledgeable as someone with 1000 hours. Maybe they played NS1 or comp only or maybe the guy with 1000 just never took it seriously and the guy with 50 spent time actually researching the game or watching streams or something. The point is that time means nothing at all other than for filtering rookies who haven't logged enough games to be ranked on skill, and even then there are occasional greens who outplay me (700+ hours here), whether they are smurfs or just really good FPSers I don't know.
I've got 500 hours in this game and I would say my abilities are reasonable at marine, kinda terrible at aliens (I don't like alien gameplay so I don't try). But any skilled player with 500 hours would absolutely destroy me.
@sotanaht, yeah, I'm that guy who doesn't take the game seriously.
there should be absolutely no greens that outplayed you... if they did, it's smurfing, or you're truly terribad. green is still deactivated automatically after 10 hours right?
Last seen = November 2...
I just did some games... And the week before that...
Depends on the server and whether or not it's enabled on hive. I know my stats list games I played yesterday, and a number of games spread out between now and nov 15
I've dealt with it twice. One who I'm almost positive was smurfing and another who claims he was just pro at other FPS (UT I think, not his words). Both were on marines though, strategy for marines on the ground is very very simple in pubs so it's not impossible to believe someone would be able to pick it up and play it if they were already very skilled at shooting fast and erratic targets. Of course the possibility of hacks also exists but I'm not making accusations.
Also, I thought it was 4 hours.
That's exactly the case. Current hive ratings are probably just going to be used for initial placement in the eventual matchmaking system that is confirmed to be in the works scheduled for "medium term".
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with 10,it was 4 last I remembered.
well, that's because Godar is uber noob obviously, the numbers back me up
He probably performed really badly, low KDR or whatever. Sounds like the metrics aren't any good.
Funny to see it change and I haven't played vanilla NS2 yet
To all the naysayers, yes the system could allow people to manipulate stats to play in a class they do not belong in but for the most part this will help a lot. Not to mention, if you have played any pubs lately, it cannot possibly get any worse than it currently is.. if I play 10 games 9 are complete blowouts from stacks and maybe 1 has some back and forth where the game outcome is not decided at 3 minutes or less.
getting killed by Godard should give you points.
Then sorting, throwing spurts aside and work with what's left.
If i spend all the games i play on a server that just don't send stats, i'll never get anything. Even if i end up with a nasty bastard skulk score like 50:1...
I'm also disappointed by the fact that commanders don't really get anything while they are the most skilled of them all. I don't remember seeing score getting up after passing the whole day commanding on UWE servers.
While there is a clear lack of commanders for one. It should be a little more interesting to motivate new players to learn and command when ready.
a) it runs on every unmodded server and servers with ns2 stats
b) it takes 50 rounds from a server to show up there, and the server must be whitelisted
But I think the K/D ratio must be part of the skill number, especially as a marine or higher lifeforms : A marine who stays alive and get kills without being killed is important for map presence. A Fade who harvests solo marines without overcomitting and staying alive is a huge role too.
And killing a noob skulk shouldn't be as rewarding as killing a very skilled skulk. Killing a noob fade shouldn't be very rewarding either. In the other hand, getting a very positive K/D ratio as a gorge sould be more rewarded than the K/D ratio of an early lerk or a fade or an onos.
....for exemple, you are rated 700.
-Killing a skulk skilled at 100 will give you +0,1.
-Killing a skulk skilled at 400 will give you +0,4.
-Killing a skulk skilled at 700 will give you +1.
-but Killing a skulk skilled at 1000 will give you +2 or +3.
In the opposite,
-being killed by a skulk skilled at 100 will give you -5 or 10.
-being killed by a skulk skilled at 700 will give you -1.
--being killed by a skulk skilled at 1000 will give you -0,2 or -0,3.
I think we should balance the K/D around you individual skill and the skill of your opponent, and the lifeform you are using, the weapon...etc.
And it should still be hidden.
Pure W/L ratio is very significant in comp play. And the competitive play doesn't need such a ranking system. I think Elo ranking MUST be designed for pub play, where the difference between skills is so huge we can't bind ranking on W/L ratio...
Of course you are right ^^. This is why I love that game. Based around teamplay and splitting tasks among players in your team. And when everyone fully understands what to do, even a lost game is a beautiful game
But the builder must know how to place well to see and react when attacked by a lone skulk. He must know how to feint to start building and bait skulks. That skill is measured by the fact he survives the engagement when attacked, if he kills the skulk before he dies. Basicaly, K/D ratio.
A team who works together to win should be rewarded together for that win. It will even out over time.
While I completely agree with you, I'd rather have a team of 6 sharp shooters who can temporarily fulfil supporting roles when needed, than a team where any one person isnt capable of holding their own.