Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship)
| Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Fri, 19 March 2004 22:12  |
|
| Orca |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
| ForceUser wrote on Fri, 19 March 2004 18:32 |
Basic ideas for Skill levels:
- Game Designer / Messiah OR Uber Expert 
- Expert: wins most games played, few knowledge gaps
- Advanced: known to be good, often finishes in high rank, has won many games
- Advanced Intermediate: has won multiple games
- Intermediate: has won one to two games
- Advanced Beginner: has finished in the top 3 in a game
- Beginner: had played 1 or more public games
- Newbie: has never played a public game
|
Skill classification is difficult for a variety of reasons: there's so many skills you need to succeed in Stars!, so much knowledge you need to know, and not least, skill is a constantly moving target as people move up with experience.
That said, I would classify skill rankings approximately according to this:
- Beginner: Cannot reach 25K/2450 under any circumstances. Very inexperienced. May or may not have multiple games vs humans under your belt. The AI is generally still something of a challenge. You really don't know what you're doing with race design, ship design, MM, tactics, and grand strategy. May know what you're doing with diplomacy.
- Intermediate: At minimum can reach 25K/2450 under ideal circumstances. Have a basic idea of how to handle MM and ship design (you generally won't see x-ray battleships - though you very well could see Doomsday/Arm cruisers). Grand strategy is still generally a mystery. Tactics usually consist of "throw all the ships together and point them at a random planet". Race designs tend to have defects (sometimes major ones). You still get your head handed to you when fighting more advanced players unless you've got a major advantage. The AI is still sometimes fun to beat up on, but you consider it easy. You may have heard about chaff and chaff sweeping - and maybe even used it once or twice.
- Advanced: You can easily hit 25K/2450. Your race designs tend to have few defects, though you might experiment with something completely wacky just to see how it works. You know what someone is talking about when they blabber about their "WM IFE NRSE OBRM NAS 1/7 19% 1/1000 14/9/16g 10/3/16 weapons and con cheap" without having to think too much about it. MM skills tend to be strong, knowledge of Stars! lore also tends to be strong. Grand strategy is something you consider periodically throughout the game (or sometimes from start to finish). Your tactics are generally good - you know the value of mobility, how to stage ambushes, use battle orders to the best of your advantage, testbed major battles, etc. Your ship designs tend to have few weaknesses that you don't know about. The AI is joke to you - and intermediate level players fear you. You still end up learning some tricks when you watch what the experts do though...
- Expert: You've been playing this game too long. You have more races in your race vat than most players have even thought of. Simply looking at a race with no access to the race wizard, you can suggest improvements and variations. You can play HP's, QS's, HG's, NF's (-F's to most of you out there), and low factory races with equal skill, though you might prefer a particular type. You know all the advantages and disadvantages of the LRT's and PRT's and how best to utilize them. Your tactics surprise advanced level players and completely confuddle intermediates. You're thinking about grand strategy from 2400. You know how to take advantage of an organic armored w16 battleship - and what vulnerabilities that leaves you open to. Diplomacy is something you can do very very well. And you know how to use it to keep your opponents fighting each other while you grow strong. You might not always use it though...
For a more entertaining look at this, check out Gakl's treatise on it at http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=36b7be35.0%40news1.ibm. net&output=gplain
...
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Fri, 19 March 2004 23:31  |
|
 Crusader |
 | Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 233
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dixie Land | |
|
| Orca wrote on Fri, 19 March 2004 21:12 |
Skill classification is difficult for a variety of reasons:
|
I agree with everything, and I do mean everthing, that you said in your post, as well as the entertaining post from the NG; but the quote above is what I agree with the most. 
I just have to say it, because it has been said before as many times as classifications have been posted. Skill is something that cannot be classified. Nope. Just can't do it. Oh we post guidelines all the time, and they are useful for some (the ones that pay attention).
Very first game just has to be at a beginner's level for 99% of the players, simply because 99% of the first-time players feel that they are ready for an advanced-level game. It's true! Everyone admit it now. I did. I just knew it down in my bones that I could take on an intermediate-level game at the very least. Truth be told, I did pretty decent in my 1st game. Made it to 25K by 2450 without any problems, and did it with an HG SS. (Aw heck, who needs a CA to make a monster!) But ...
There was only 5 players in a medium uni. Hmmm.
No fighting took place until after 2450. Hmmmm.
I lost two battle fleets in actions I was not ready for because I did not move them out of the way of the invading enemy and did not set the battle orders to avoid battle. Hmmmm.
Now there may be 1 to 2 percent of beginning players who are good enough to catch those mistakes BEFORE they make them that first time. But they are a rare breed.
Everyone should do themselves a favor and join a beginner game the very first time. IMHO. 
After that first game, however, I say go ahead and go wild. Take an honest appraisal of yourself and jump in where you think you belong. No one gets better by staying safely on the bottom rung. Ya gotta stretch!  And, if that stretch hurts, pull it back a bit so it don't sting so badly the next time out. Works for me. People who can honestly appraise their skill level, and I believe that to be most folks, can make it work for them too. Yeah, there are a very few who can't seem to manage honest self-reflection. And, yeah, there are a very few who seem to get really upset when who they believe to be a beginner joins up with an intermediate game. Seems people are overreacting all the time anymore, especially during rush hour.
Ok. I've let my opinion just spill out all over my laptop. I've killed some time and wasted some bandwidth and possibly your time. I think I'll get ready for the It's the Economy, Stupid! game by visualizing Dave Ramsey checking in at the Holiday Inn.
The Crusader 
Nothing for now.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Fri, 19 March 2004 23:48 |
|
| Orca |
| Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
| Crusader wrote on Fri, 19 March 2004 23:31 |
Very first game just has to be at a beginner's level for 99% of the players, simply because 99% of the first-time players feel that they are ready for an advanced-level game. It's true!
|
TOO TRUE! I'm an exception - I went to #Stars! blitz before I went to PBEM, so I *knew* I was a beginner. Yeah, sure, I won a few blitzes against other newbies - the experienced players totally creamed me! 
| Crusader wrote on Fri, 19 March 2004 23:31 |
Everyone admit it now. I did. I just knew it down in my bones that I could take on an intermediate-level game at the very least. Truth be told, I did pretty decent in my 1st game. Made it to 25K by 2450 without any problems, and did it with an HG SS. (Aw heck, who needs a CA to make a monster!) But ...
|
That's actually very good - sounds like you might have been able to make low intermediate instead. But it's much safer to start with beginner. Intermediate is a VERY wide classification. You've got the beginners moving up. The players that should be in advanced games, but just don't know it yet (or don't have the confidence for it yet). And all the other intermediates of course.
Actually, what I've found is a lot more beginners seem to think they're ready for advanced or expert level games...I think they must think that's the level of the AI that they can play against without losing.
| Crusader wrote on Fri, 19 March 2004 23:31 |
Everyone should do themselves a favor and join a beginner game the very first time. IMHO.
|
Yep - and to make life less painful, make sure it's a medium universe *at most*. You make TONS of mistakes even before the game starts - do you really want to be playing that 1/2 hab ARM CA for the next 150 (or more!) turns a large or huge will take?
Your first few games you'll learn a LOT. Not the least of which is what not to do.
| Crusader wrote on Fri, 19 March 2004 23:31 |
After that first game, however, I say go ahead and go wild. Take an honest appraisal of yourself and jump in where you think you belong. No one gets better by staying safely on the bottom rung. Ya gotta stretch!
|
I'm not so sure here. If you win in a beginner game, then sure, move on up to intermediate. If you did fairly well, or think you could beat most of the people you played if you were to play again, maybe move on up to intermediate. But I wouldn't suggest moving straight to advanced - you'll almost certainly get your clock cleaned. As it was, it took a solid 6 months before I could beat Gakl in Blitz, and at that time I was probably only at around a high intermediate overall, possibly advanced with respect to race design.
My fundamental rule to rankings is that if you're consistantly winning at a particular rank, move up. If you're winning some, losing some, you're probably at the right level. If you're consistantly losing, it's probably time to move down. And if you get COMPLETELY stomped and you don't know why or how, take a cold hard look at yourself and make sure you're not in the wrong category. And if you get invited into a higher level game, maybe it's time you moved on up...
Regards,
...
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 20 March 2004 01:10 |
|
| icebird |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 3 |
Messages: 178
Registered: September 2003
Location: In LaLa land... | |
|
| Orca wrote on Fri, 19 March 2004 20:12 |
Intermediate: At minimum can reach 25K/2450 under ideal circumstances. Have a basic idea of how to handle MM and ship design (you generally won't see x-ray battleships - though you very well could see Doomsday/Arm cruisers). Grand strategy is still generally a mystery. Tactics usually consist of "throw all the ships together and point them at a random planet". Race designs tend to have defects (sometimes major ones). You still get your head handed to you when fighting more advanced players unless you've got a major advantage. The AI is still sometimes fun to beat up on, but you consider it easy. You may have heard about chaff and chaff sweeping - and maybe even used it once or twice.
- Advanced: You can easily hit 25K/2450. Your race designs tend to have few defects, though you might experiment with something completely wacky just to see how it works. You know what someone is talking about when they blabber about their "WM IFE NRSE OBRM NAS 1/7 19% 1/1000 14/9/16g 10/3/16 weapons and con cheap" without having to think too much about it. MM skills tend to be strong, knowledge of Stars! lore also tends to be strong. Grand strategy is something you consider periodically throughout the game (or sometimes from start to finish). Your tactics are generally good - you know the value of mobility, how to stage ambushes, use battle orders to the best of your advantage, testbed major battles, etc. Your ship designs tend to have few weaknesses that you don't know about. The AI is joke to you - and intermediate level players fear you. You still end up learning some tricks when you watch what the experts do though...
|
Cool, so I'm an advanced player with some aspects of intermediate?
I don't think so... 
As others have said, you have to be honest with yourself, and not rely on a simple chart. I am a begginer (I like to think on the higher end), and I know it. However, if I were to follow these guidlines, I would be altogether out of my league.
-Peter, Lord of the Big Furry ThingsReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 20 March 2004 22:44 |
|
| Orca |
| Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
The problem with going purely by wins is that it depends who you're playing against. Who's the better player? The one that's won 10 games vs beginner players? Or the one that won 2 beginner games, came in highly ranked in a few intermediate games, and came in highly ranked in an advanced game? And how do you classify the games? Do duels count? Different universes? Special conditions? Blah blah blah.
I've played literally hundreds of blitzes. I have no idea how many I won - do those count? How 'bout the ones where I brutally slaughtered some poor soul who was new to blitz? Does that count? (IMO, any time the skill disparity is so large that it's not even a question, not really.) And for that matter, blitz experience doesn't translate cleanly onto PBEM experience (and vice versa). It's helpful - principally towards race design (due to the rapid testing and adjustment blitz affords), basic econ MM (you learn what you NEED to MM to live), and basic tactics and grand strategy. But diplomacy is sharply limited, tactics and skirmishing are limited, as is extensive econ management. The multiple year gens also cause it to play a bit differently. You run into the same problem with other specialized games. AFON start game experience isn't the same as duel experience isn't the same as spiral experience isn't the same as team experience isn't the same as regular plain-jane Stars! experience.
Skill level is a combination of knowledge and ability to act on that knowledge (experience greatly influencing both of these factors). Even the best read beginner who's read every single text they can is rather unlikely to be able to do much more than regurgitate race designs, tactics, etc. - they just don't know on a gut level the interactions. I was one of these. My first race was a reconstructed monster CA (though with centered hab, TT, and a few other tweaks). Talking to LEit, it sounds like he was as well. And let's be honest - there's no all inclusive strategy document out there that can tell you how to deal with every situation. Even after years of training, green officers still have a ton to learn from their veteran serjeants...
Certainly I've met a few players that thought that because they'd won a ton of games within their particular group, they were the top of the heap. 'course, these same players typically advocated some rather...err...non-optimal races/tactics/ship designs/etc. (not all at the same time, and not all the same players - but the type of person is clear).
And then, what happens to the player that's playing at the advanced level? I'd expect some wins, but you can't have 30 advanced players that all won the majority of games against each other.
All of this comes down to that it's *very* difficult to rank skill - and there's no way to "objectively" rank it at this point. It's not like chess where you can play half a dozen games in a day - half a dozen PBEMs could take 2 years! And in the meantime, there are people that have stopped playing the game, others that have started, and others that have moved up. A few will have stayed at whatever level for a variety of reasons (JFeeple for example, is easily an advanced player by experience, race design etc. - but doesn't MM enough to be competitive at the advanced level - and so the intermediate level tends to be about right for him. But his opinion is certainly worth listening to and taking into account - doubly so when he's talking about race design).
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sun, 21 March 2004 17:46 |
|
|
|
Maybe the problem is that there are too few skill levels being discussed.
Suppose we define 8 skill levels. Doesn't matter what they mean.
1 Beginner
2 Low intermedite
3 Intermediate
4 High intermediate
5 Low advanced
6 Advanced
7 High advanced
8 Expert
Each game specifies a skill level. If you finish in the top 1/4 you move up, the bottom 1/4 you move down, otherwise you stay where you are.
Initially, everyone gets to pick whatever level they like. You get a few mismatched games at the start, but pretty quickly it settles down.
From that point on, everyone without an "official" ranking starts as beginner. If you really are good, your 7th game will be expert.
---------------------
There are 2 types of player in the world, 12% BET -f PP and everyone else - Staz 
[Updated on: Sun, 21 March 2004 17:48] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Tue, 23 March 2004 11:30 |
|
|
|
| Staz wrote on Sun, 21 March 2004 16:46 |
Maybe the problem is that there are too few skill levels being discussed.
Suppose we define 8 skill levels. Doesn't matter what they mean.
1 Beginner
2 Low intermedite
3 Intermediate
4 High intermediate
5 Low advanced
6 Advanced
7 High advanced
8 Expert
Each game specifies a skill level. If you finish in the top 1/4 you move up, the bottom 1/4 you move down, otherwise you stay where you are.
Initially, everyone gets to pick whatever level they like. You get a few mismatched games at the start, but pretty quickly it settles down.
From that point on, everyone without an "official" ranking starts as beginner. If you really are good, your 7th game will be expert.
|
This free-form ranking system could actually work. However, I would suggest a slightly modified advancement schema.
Advance from level 1, 1 top 20%;
Advance from level 2; 2 top 20%; (ratings 2.0 and 2.5)
Advance from level 3; 3 top 20%; (ratings 3.0, 3.3, 3.6)
Advance from level 4; 4 top 20%; (ratings 4.0, 4.25, 4.5, 4.75)
etc.
The host could submit advancements and decrements to a centralized rating agent.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Tue, 23 March 2004 12:21 |
|
|
|
| donjon wrote on Tue, 23 March 2004 16:30 |
This free-form ranking system could actually work. However, I would suggest a slightly modified advancement schema.
Advance from level 1, 1 top 20%;
Advance from level 2; 2 top 20%; (ratings 2.0 and 2.5)
Advance from level 3; 3 top 20%; (ratings 3.0, 3.3, 3.6)
Advance from level 4; 4 top 20%; (ratings 4.0, 4.25, 4.5, 4.75)
etc.
The host could submit advancements and decrements to a centralized rating agent.
|
I'm not entirely sure I understand this scheme, especially the ratings 
Could you explain in a bit more detail ?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Tue, 23 March 2004 12:29 |
|
|
|
| donjon wrote on Tue, 23 March 2004 16:30 |
The host could submit advancements and decrements to a centralized rating agent.
|
The ratings could be posted in a controlled forum here, like EDog does with the duel rankings.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Tue, 23 March 2004 14:32 |
|
|
|
| Staz wrote on Tue, 23 March 2004 11:21 |
I'm not entirely sure I understand this scheme, especially the ratings
Could you explain in a bit more detail ?
|
Hmmm, now let's see how did i get tables before
Player Level Advance Decrement
1.0 Beginner 1.0 0.0
2.0 Low intermediate 0.5 1.0
3.0 Intermediate 0.3 0.5
4.0 High intermediate 0.25 0.3
5.0 Low advanced 0.2 0.25
6.0 Advanced 0.16 0.2
7.0 High advanced 0.14 0.16
8.0 Expert 0.12 0.14
I would suggest a game level modifier as well...
Game Average Level Advance Modifier Decrement Modifier
1.0 Beginner 1 0
2.0 Low intermediate 2 1
3.0 Intermediate 3 2
4.0 High intermediate 4 3
5.0 Low advanced 5 4
6.0 Advanced 6 5
7.0 High advanced 7 6
8.0 Expert 8 7
So the advance would be the (basic advance value)*(game modifier)
For example,| Quote: |
donjon rated himself intermediate and played in an intermediate game and lost miserably
original rating 3.0 + (-.5*2) ... new rating 2.0 (low intermediate)
|
and...| Quote: |
jimmy(name changed to protect the innocent) rated himself intermediate and played in a high intermediate game and got in top 20%
original rating 3.0+(.3*4)... new rating 4.2 (high intermediate)
|
and...| Quote: |
xmaster rated himself advanced and played in an intermediate game and won (no surprise)
original rating 6.0+(.16*3) ... new rating 6.48 (advanced)
he later played another intermediate game and got pummelled
rating 6.48+(-.2*2) ... new rating 6.08 (advanced)
***note: increments are slightly larger than decrements for similar games.
|
and...| Quote: |
bashful rated himself beginner and played in a low advanced game and won (big surprise)
original rating 1.0+(1*5) ... new rating 6.0 (advanced)
|
You must realize that the average rating of the game is based on the floor of the average of all players in the game (excluding the host, unless he is playing) therefore, it would be impossible to have an expert rated game unless ALL players are of expert rating. However, an expert playing in a lower valued game, increases the value of the game.
[Updated on: Tue, 23 March 2004 15:59] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Tue, 23 March 2004 15:47 |
|
|
|
Whereas I like a simple rating system, to give a general idea of the strength of the mentor and the student, I think that rating system above is lacking some things to be accurate...
1) How would you accurately judge the level of the game? IMO the TRUE level of the game is not based upon the suggestion of the host, but the actual players in the game.
2) So all players would have some adjustment to their rating, based upon their own rating, and the average (mean, median, something...) rating of the players in the game.
3) What if a 7.0 player got in a very bad position in a game, and got pummeled early. What if it was a player that had won a number of level 7 games before? That experienced player should not lose an entire rank for one bad game. So experience and history of the player should have something to do with it. But not so much that a low ranked player will never get better... very hard to balance IMO.
4) This also assumes that all players start with a rank. How would starting ranks be assigned?
My original point was to get a 'rough' idea of skill levels, for knowing who would be a good mentor, and who would be a student. I do not have any objection to a detailed rating system, but it will take a LOT of work to get one that works well.
My most recent thought would be something similar to what is used in Table Tennis, but I do not have time to describe that now... have to get my taxes done...
RainDancer
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Tue, 23 March 2004 16:09 |
|
|
|
| Raindancer wrote: |
Whereas I like a simple rating system, to give a general idea of the strength of the mentor and the student, I think that rating system above is lacking some things to be accurate...
1) How would you accurately judge the level of the game? IMO the TRUE level of the game is not based upon the suggestion of the host, but the actual players in the game.
|
The game level would be judged upon the average level of all players playing the game.
| Raindancer wrote: |
2) So all players would have some adjustment to their rating, based upon their own rating, and the average (mean, median, something...) rating of the players in the game.
|
The top 20% and lower 20% players in the game would have adjustments.
| Raindancer wrote: |
3) What if a 7.0 player got in a very bad position in a game, and got pummeled early. What if it was a player that had won a number of level 7 games before? That experienced player should not lose an entire rank for one bad game. So experience and history of the player should have something to do with it. But not so much that a low ranked player will never get better... very hard to balance IMO.
|
An advanced player who gets pummelled would recover quite quickly and the effects of the pummel would be less than an advance.
| Raindancer wrote: |
4) This also assumes that all players start with a rank. How would starting ranks be assigned?
My original point was to get a 'rough' idea of skill levels, for knowing who would be a good mentor, and who would be a student. I do not have any objection to a detailed rating system, but it will take a LOT of work to get one that works well.
|
The advantage of the placement is that the player can rate him/herself how he/she sees him/herself... the truth will come out in the wash
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Tue, 23 March 2004 18:53 |
|
|
|
It seems a little complex, but I'm sure it could work. I've just been looking at the Elo rating system that chess players use - now that IS complex
What would it take to set it all up ?
We'd need someone (actually a couple of people) to set up a controlled forum and agree to do all the calculations.
We'd need some rules about what games qualify as ranking games.
We'd need to set up the first few ranking games. Maybe 3 games (beginner, intermediate, advanced) each of small universe, 6 players, highest score at 2500. To get the ranking system to settle down quickly, and to get ranks posted so that people can see it is working, it is probably best to have more, faster games rather than fewer longer ones (though only to start with).
Players need to be identifyable - probably be SAH nickname.
I think we should give it a try and see how much interest we can drum up.
On a more technical note; it looks like it is easier to advance than to decline in rank with your system. Is this wise ? We don't want everyone to end crowding the higher levels.
[Updated on: Tue, 23 March 2004 18:56] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Wed, 24 March 2004 05:40 |
|
|
|
| LEit wrote on Wed, 24 March 2004 01:20 |
You can't do a ranking system similar to the ranking system used in chess. Games don't take an hour or two (or 5 minutes if you're playing speed chess).
|
Yep, I appreciate that. Also, chess is a 2 player game with an easily defined winner+loser/draw. Stars! is multi-player and it is not always easy to see whether a mid ranking player should be counted as winner or loser.
| Quote: |
Given the time it takes to play a game, the amount of luck involved, and the variablity of other players, I don't think any ranking system is going to be fair. And if it's not fair, it is unlikely that it will be accepted by the players.
|
If it is based on wins/losses in ranking games then it is fair, almost by definition. We may get an argument about how much a players rank reflects their true ability, but it is fair.
The biggest question, though, has to be "is it worth trying" ?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Wed, 24 March 2004 09:24 |
|
| LEit |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
| Staz wrote on Wed, 24 March 2004 05:40 |
If it is based on wins/losses in ranking games then it is fair, almost by definition. We may get an argument about how much a players rank reflects their true ability, but it is fair.
|
No it isn't.
What if I start next to some poor HE, and get double my space by taking his worlds, while you're pinned in with good players on all sides? What if I find a 90%+ world within 80 ly of my HW, and the best you find is a 40% world 300ly away? What if my enemies drop after I start beating them, while yours fight to the bitter end? What if I rank myself as an intermediate because I havn't played that many games, but am really higher.
Here's my PBEM history:
CHoS 1, beginner game: started a war with a 3i HE in 2407, containing him to 4 worlds, then just sat on him. Went on to win the game.
Frost's game, beginner game: (I forget the name, Frost was the ID of the host) I played a CA monster, neighbor dropped. Had 2x 2nd place at 2450, won the game. Only battle I fought was with the player who dropped...
CHoS 1 and Frost's were both started at about the same time.
AFON 1, 9 small races vs 1 large AR: I took over a wide hab, ARM SS on a team of 9... We won. I don't remember how I did compared to the rest of the team, but was probably in the bottom 20%.
AFON 2, 8 small vs 1 large AR: Game was a joke, we won fast. Team was highly optimized to work together, and grew incredibly fast. Again, I think I played an IS, so I was probably behind the CAs and ITs on our team, and in the middle of the pack score wise.
Center Warz, hold center for 10 turns: I played the only IT, and won quickly, after that went on to do well, 2 enemies dropped, however.
FoP, 4x4 team game, 2x int, 2x beginner on each team: Game ended after one team dropped, My team and overworked's teams were doing well.
RWIAB 1, intermediate all -f game: Middle of the pack for a long time, won at the end. Several players were not intermediates, including at least two of my neighbors/enemies.
So, how would your system rank me?
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Wed, 24 March 2004 09:42 |
|
|
|
| LEit wrote on Wed, 24 March 2004 14:24 |
So, how would your system rank me?
|
You are missing the point.
The system we were discussing can't rank you based on your history in non-ranking games. It can only rank you on your future performance in ranking games.
Your rank is based on progression as you perform well or badly against other ranked players.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 27 21:37:23 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
! Thats the whole point! Besides, did you think I was going to rank the mentors 
! Jeewiz no. Na I'm kind of hoping some other poor sod is going to do that. 
hehe
Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship)
