|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sun, 28 March 2004 11:46   |
|
 Alien |
 | Crewman 2nd Class |
Messages: 18
Registered: March 2004
Location: Belgium | |
|
Wouldn't it be best to have several numbers lie under each rank? That way You might not immediately jump down after having some bad luck, but if you continually play badly, you'll certainly fall downwards. And hosts can still use beg-int, giving a range of say scores 30-55, where some high beginners (corporals, whatever) and some low ints may fall under.
Another way might be to have games have a larger impact on your score the fewer games you've played. Then it's easier to stabilize, and it doesn't take too long for a new player to find his approximate niche.
A friendly discussion at the end of each game, including the players, host (whether playing or not) and the list manager, should be able to reward players objectively, and agree upon who should be given or taken points from, be it 25% or whatever amount the people deem fair.
---
Treehuggers united!Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sun, 28 March 2004 12:00 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
There could be one bonus with using numbers: a game host could easily calculate the difficulty of the game by just averaging all the skill numbers. Seeing the difficulty of 3.8 for a particular game a newbie (with experience 1 or 2) would know it's a bit above his ability, and an experienced player (with score 5+) may decide it's not big enough challenge to play in it.
An additional bonus could be the scoring system: if one would win a game with lower difficulty then his current experience number is, he'd get less points for it, and vice versa.
|
| Quote: |
Wouldn't it be best to have several numbers lie under each rank? That way You might not immediately jump down after having some bad luck, but if you continually play badly, you'll certainly fall downwards. And hosts can still use beg-int, giving a range of say scores 30-55, where some high beginners (corporals, whatever) and some low ints may fall under.
Another way might be to have games have a larger impact on your score the fewer games you've played. Then it's easier to stabilize, and it doesn't take too long for a new player to find his approximate niche.
|
This is pretty much what we are proposing. Well, donjon is proposing it anyway, and I'm happy to go with his idea.
| Quote: |
A friendly discussion at the end of each game, including the players, host (whether playing or not) and the list manager, should be able to reward players objectively, and agree upon who should be given or taken points from, be it 25% or whatever amount the people deem fair.
|
This is a bit like setting victory conditions at the end of the game, and could be open to significant abuse.
My view is that it is better for the parameters to be fixed up front; this might lead to only 2 out of 3 very good players getting rewarded, but at least they knew up front how it would go. It would also encourage people to fight for 2nd/3rd place, even if there is a runaway leader.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sun, 28 March 2004 13:08 |
|
|
|
I've been keeping up with all these options getting evaluated and I agree with the plan for assigning points for different finishing positions. Think about it sort of as to how points are awarded in motor racing - Finishing first gets max points 2nd somewhat less etc. Even a beginner that lasts out the entire game and finishes last should qualify for a point just by virtue of having stuck with the game until the end and survived.
Whether or not labels are assigned for various point ranges is immaterial since it really is the numbers that count. However, I think that we'll find that more rather than less players would like to have some labels assigned for point ranges and there isn't any harm in it.
To start with, we can keep it posted as a sticky thread in the Forum and perhaps ForceUser or somebody else would want to keep the list updated on a web site. If the ranking system takes off and is popular, perhaps then it could be made a new topic in the Forum.
I think the most difficult will be determining what starting values should be assigned to any given experienced player.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Mon, 29 March 2004 00:10 |
|
|
|
So far, everyone seems to be agreed on the 8 skill levels;
| Quote: |
1 Beginner
2 Low intermedite
3 Intermediate
4 High intermediate
5 Low advanced
6 Advanced
7 High advanced
8 Expert
|
All things considered, we could define 10 using point ranges and assign similar labels to what are used in the Forum as well:
Newbie 0-10 Cadet
Beginner 10-20 Ensign
Low intermedite 20-30 Lieutenant jg (junior grade)
Intermediate 30-40 Lieutenant
High intermediate 40-50 Commander
Low advanced 50-60 Captain
Advanced 60-70 Commodore
High advanced 70-80 Rear Admiral
Expert 80-100 Admiral
Guru 100+ Emperor
We can use the earlier formulas for calculating points awards or do something more simple;
1st place = 10 points
2nd place = 6 points
3rd place = 5 points
4th place = 3 points
5th place = 2 points
6th-nth place = 1 point
Any places after first = + 1 point for being in an alliance.
Just a thought 
Ptolemy
Updated to assign only officer ranks.
[Updated on: Mon, 29 March 2004 00:45]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Proof of the pudding |
Mon, 29 March 2004 00:56 |
|
|
|
There are too many ranks in the Starfleet hierchy for assigning to player skill levels. A shortened version of Navy ranks wroks best for lables when we are only defining 8-10 levels of player skill. As I look at my last post, I think we could drop the 'low advanced' level and use the following 9 levels:
Newbie 0-10 Cadet
Beginner 10-20 Ensign
Low intermedite 20-30 Lieutenant
Intermediate 30-40 Commander
High intermediate 40-50 Captain
Advanced 60-70 Commodore
High advanced 70-80 Rear Admiral
Expert 80-100 Admiral
Guru 100+ Emperor
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Mon, 29 March 2004 01:21 |
|
|
|
Seems to me that Player 4 in that scenario is the smart one - he lets players 1, 2 and 3 fight it out, kill off their fleets, wipe out their minerals - then he swoops in taking what he will and gets victory - player 4 deserves the win.
Note that the other players haven't actually lost any points - they've simply received fewer points.
I figure though that the point ranges will have to widen a little from what I proposed based on the amount of points being awarded with the above scheme.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Mon, 29 March 2004 01:24]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Proof of the pudding |
Mon, 29 March 2004 05:50 |
|
|
|
In that case, we should just leave the labels as being from Newbie - Guru. This way there won't be any confusion. All that we need to do is work out the points value system and the point ranges for the different levels.
I would recommend, though, using the levels listed above.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Mon, 29 March 2004 05:50]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Proof of the pudding |
Mon, 29 March 2004 06:11 |
|
|
|
| Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 29 March 2004 11:50 |
In that case, we should just leave the labels as being from Newbie - Guru. This way there won't be any confusion.
|
That was the first suggestion. The problem with that (which led on to the military rankings) was that there labels like "Beginner" and "Intermediate" have meanings that may not fit with the skills of the players who have those ranks.
| Quote: |
All that we need to do is work out the points value system and the point ranges for the different levels.
|
I'm still in favour of the system that donjon posted on page 1 of this discussion.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Proof of the pudding |
Mon, 29 March 2004 06:39 |
|
|
|
I don't see a problem with leaving the labels as 'Newbie - Guru'.
First of all, players that are known are going to have to be assigned a skill level that isn't 'Newbie'. As things get going, adjustments can be made to accommodate initial skill levels that are inaccurate.
Besides, a player may be Intermediate but, only when he plays IT - when he's playing some other PRT, he may very well be a beginner.
The rating scale Orca set down as the first message is fine:
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
donjon's point system will work fine for the start - it can always be modified later as needed.
At this point, it's better to get the rating system up and running than to keep hashing over the details of it.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Proof of the pudding |
Mon, 29 March 2004 06:57 |
|
|
|
| Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 29 March 2004 12:39 |
I don't see a problem with leaving the labels as 'Newbie - Guru'.
|
But other people did. Those lables suggest that we are ranking a player's skill level; we are actually ranking their performance.
| Quote: |
First of all, players that are known are going to have to be assigned a skill level that isn't 'Newbie'. As things get going, adjustments can be made to accommodate initial skill levels that are inaccurate.
|
Agreed.
| Quote: |
Besides, a player may be Intermediate but, only when he plays IT - when he's playing some other PRT, he may very well be a beginner.
|
All the more reason to not use labels like "Intermediate".
| Quote: |
The rating scale Orca set down as the first message is fine:
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
|
This is based on some assigning skill levels to players based on their their experience. Most people agree that this isn't workable which is why more recent discussion has been about a ladder or league system.
| Quote: |
donjon's point system will work fine for the start - it can always be modified later as needed.
|
Yep
| Quote: |
At this point, it's better to get the rating system up and running than to keep hashing over the details of it.
|
Again, I fully agree with you. Things had pretty much settled down until a fresh round of discussion started recently, going over all the old arguments again.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
OMG - I just realized I'm getting dangerously close to becoming an officer! 
I think I better ask Ron if I can make the grade of Master Chief Petty Officer of Stars! then stay there forever 
Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship)
