All i can say is.....new ranking system....more aimbots.

Is that a promise, because that last one you gave me was one of POMs dodgey shareware ones that ran out the other day.

I apologize for that nut I will have an updated one ready in about a week for about half the price.

Why would there be more bots if the ranking system changed? I don't follow that logic.

@ lappy
I suppose caring for a ratio based ranking system depends on your opinion on whether competitive play adds anything to the game or not. In my case I'd consider it something that adds to the fun instead of the the current rank system that I could not care less about. Being given a trophy (well medal) for an accomplishment that doesn't really have anything to do with the way you play the game is of little interest to me. Others might feel different but I will keep lobbying for a change I believe will make this great game even more interesting.

@ HWB
That is by no means a certainty. It's a risk yes, but abandoning a (what I consider to be) a good idea for a risk which probability is impossible to predict does not appeal to me.
"Any nation willing to give up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither, & will loose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Well well ...

Disrupting the debate am I?

This is a debate ?



There was no accussation in my post, just the fact that we have no way to ensure the honesty of the players and thus the stats are not a relaibale indicator of a persons real ability. That sirs, all of you, is not debateable, not debateable at all.

Now, as for the rankings being reworked to eliminate the advantage given to people that have ample time to play ... if that is the object ... I do have a suggestion.

Before I present it, feel free to check with BOY and see if I told him before starting last years Apoc Tournament, that it was set up to reward people (like me) that can't sleep. I won the tournament but did not accept the award. It wasn't a fair competition. Afterwards, I suggested to BOY that future tournaments be structured in the format being used for the MCB challange currently under way.

Speaking of the MCB contest, GOOD JOB OUTER! Your use of the short shot clock was a stroke of pure Genius. From what I've been told, it exposed quite a few of the better shooters. Anyone that wants to chat should try Yahoo or AOL. Anyone that wants more honesty in the game should be requesting a 20 second shot timer.

In order to make the ranks a more fair reflection of the "skill" of the players I propose :

The stats seem fine as they are except that they overly reward those that play more often. In order to level the field, the first game per day could be used to calculate the ranks.

If you quit (RQ) or get disconnected ... try again tomorrow and better luck next time.

Good luck,

Rommel

@Big Bear "You got to be the dumbest smart person I have ever met" Spooner in I-Robot

Sorry I thought I should quote something and that was what came in mind

But also I doubt Ben Franklin said - secuity

So my quote is better

Heh!

No argument there!

You wish! I will admit that it's more gangsta though.

@Laptop.

No way, time played must certainly never be used in a skill statistic. Time played does not take into account the amount of time you sit and watch while dead as people pew pew each other, or the number of players in the server extending play time...... The basic unit of time in the game which is the same for all players in the game is the ROUND.

It is worth saying that assists and SKs can play a roll in skill too. I don't care much for assists at all... but SKs are something that are noteworthy. Each SK shoudl be deducted from the number of total kills.

I think deaths should not come into play, and neither should resigns. Neither have much to do with your skill.

Money is only a tool to win the game, and should not be counted in skill calculations, especially since there is high interest. (although I do love games that are determined by most money. It actually eliminates the need for a score.

Considering how often a self kill is due to someone else dying funky style I'd say (in fact I already did earlier in this thread) that the connection to skill is questionable at best.

As for the rest of what you said in that post I agree.

^ wow thats geeky

also Rommel was there, and possibly that little radio cassette player guy from the new transformers film.

yes. i didnt really mean time in seconds.

(quote may have been edited)

Thank you very much Rommel. I figured it out that having a clock time with less thatn 20 seconds aiding methods and certain stuff could be eliminated, plus wind variable shows who are skilled players.

As for the now mentioned debate i really don't know what to think. I haven't made up my mind... it is just for me, my opinion, it is unfair that i play just a few hours and get a thrid or second or first place on the stats. I think time is needed in the equation, it must be clear that for me stats are no longer the point, but is unfair that i play way less and get more. Can time played be added as a certain factor which increases the chances of being on the top 10?

LOL, that is exactly the opposite of what I have been trying to achieve.
Why should players like yourself have no chance of a top ranking purely because you have a 'life'?
You are one of the top 10 players on this game atm, but do not get the credit and respect (of the newbs) as you deserve purely because you do not play much, therefore have a poor rank.

Why should Rommel/Raden/POM etc get the top ranking just because they play SOOO much (with the recent exception of POM), when there are players with far more skill WAY down the list?
You have put in many hours playing and built up an amazing level of skill, but why should each series require MORE hours to gain a rank?


EDIT: this was previously discussed here, with a couple of decent ideas.(wonder Y the Bal of Death hasn't re-posted)

Ponder this. Half of the rank will be based on points. 15 points a game win,3 points a round win, 1 point a kill. People with time on their hands will still do better on that half. The other half will be based on skill. The best average of the two is 1st and so on. I don't know what to say about the skill rating. I played 3 games with noobs the other day and my skill went up about 250 points. The skill rating jumps around to much due to who you play. there are a million reasons why one might want to shoot a hog rather than napalm, so leave weapons levels out of it. A simple fix is to put up another top ten rank for skill, when joining a game it would say "Ranked 1 in kills,22 in skill". Just as long as the kill top ten is on top. *) THE NAKED STONER

The rank system I suggested is for the NEXT version. For God's sake don't change the stats mid-way through! THE NAKED STONER

I think the ranking system should be based on a combination of stats that do not require "more" playing time as the standard. However, in order to achieve a reasonable sample size, you can use kills.

In other words use kills for rank until the player reaches the top 25 and then sort those 25 by stats other than kills. This would stop anyone that achieved a high rank early on by not playing.....that would be silly.

There are a number of stats that can be used in combination.

Kill Ratio
Kill/deaths
Kills per round
win%

......and so on. Rank each player in each seperately, then add it up. The lowest score wins.

I think the "Skill" rating can be edited to reflect this? I'm really not sure.