|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
IgniteableAura
Pro Hic Immortalis
1597
   |
Posted - 2014.08.20 20:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:So my question is what could be factored in to prevent really high scoring players from lowering their Mu without isk loss? (Afking as a squad in an MCC to help their team lose for 0 warppoints?)
Player behavior in past games have actually shown this to be a serious issue even in games with massive player pools (halo 2 had such rank system)
While I don't mind good players mixing it with the bad players and good players getting stomped to lower their ranks I do mind if they are doing it at no cost or activities that rob others of game content. You are probably best off combining a bunch of different stats to help account for this. Perhaps have a similar argument that accounts for both WP/s along with WP/d and either averages them or take the higher of the two. Which would likely still give you a pretty high correlation. Losing a match could also "cost" you fewer points. You could add logic as well to "negate" multiple 0 WP battle loses and victories. Including better AFK removal tools is a better solution though.
My only issue would be it might segregate the player base via role. I know its pretty easy to rack up points in an HAV or logi but a dropship pilot or heavy that doesn't do as much "WP" earning activities will be left behind.
My Youtube
Biomassed Podcast
|
IgniteableAura
Pro Hic Immortalis
1604
|
Posted - 2014.08.21 16:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Basically I agree with what others are saying on a 3:1 odds. I think Arkena makes an important point.
But if what you want is "100% chance of B level players winning a fight against A level players" it would be about a 3:1 odds. 2:1 is a 65% or lower. The racial preferences have less effect at higher odds, so at 2:1 it really depends on what roles the players are doing.
Having a dedicated logi and heavy together would probably take out one or two level A players, even if the logi and heavy are level B.
My Youtube
Biomassed Podcast
|
IgniteableAura
Pro Hic Immortalis
1606
|
Posted - 2014.08.21 19:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kevall Longstride wrote:I'd also say a 2.5/3 to 1 ratio.
But I'd add a modifier for those working together in a squad.
Kevall, I agree with a 2.5:1 ratio, but do we always want the B players winning (3:1)? I think a 2.5:1 would be better as it allows some leeway into winning the engagement. We don't want to make it so A list players are always losing engagements.
My Youtube
Biomassed Podcast
|
IgniteableAura
Pro Hic Immortalis
1614
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 15:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Don't worry about the A/B thing too much, I was just wondering. Maybe I should have put it differently.
If you want to win a battle, would you prefer the squads of A or B on your team
1A vs 2B - 1A
1A vs 3B - 1A
1A vs 4B - 4B
1A vs 5B - 5B
1A vs 6B - 6B
2A vs 4B - 2A
2A vs 5B - ?
2A vs 6B - ?
3A vs 5B - 3A
3A vs 6B - 3A
4A vs 6B - 4A
what I am trying to see is when does relative quality outweigh the "multiplying" power effect of a squad
I need a definition of A vs B.
If B is for the B in a bluedot, than I would rather have the A on my team for all of those examples. On any given battle I lose, I can usually count at least 4 to 5 players at the bottom of the leaderboard that basically lost us the game. Going 2-20, 1-11, 0-13 with less than 200wp each.
My Youtube
Biomassed Podcast
|
|
|
| |
|