Real concerns over Brinks Rank system

(tokamak) #61

And someone doesn’t need to be able to aim in order to be skilled, though it does help in accumulating xp/hour which is a great overall indicator of someone’s skill.

(MILFandCookies) #62

You keep telling yourself that :wink:

(tokamak) #63

Sure, and everyone else.

(MILFandCookies) #64

btw thanks for the sig… much appreciated gorkermorker :slight_smile:

ps that was a great demonstration of skill, with the gpmg vid you posted a while back… good stuff.

(tokamak) #65

No problem, I still stand by it, aim is just one of the many parts you can be skilful in.

(MILFandCookies) #66

Thread needs more sarcasm

(DarkangelUK) #67

Couldn’t they create some uber math formula for determining a skill score or something?

(K/D Ratio x objectives completed + overall XP) / hours played = gameplay score

So it computes overall performance, examples over an 18hr period of Brinkage…

So an average player that does objectives and can hold his own in a firefight would get…
(0.9KD x 100 + 12000) / 18hrs = 671 score

Now take someone that can’t aim, has played for the same time but can do objectives well…
0.3KD x 180 + 13000 / 18 = 725 score

Since they’re both lending to the game there’s not exactly a great spread between overall score

Now take someone who doesn’t play objectives much at all and just wants to kill stuff and has a cracking aim, but isn’t exactly about the teamplay or objective. He’s not gonna get as much XP or help the team as much as he could, but on shooting skill alone he has a decent score…
2.7KD x 30 + 9000 / 18 = 504

Take someone shit in all areas, reaching the lower newbie scale
0.4KD x 30 + 4000 / 18 = 222

Then someone awesome in all areas, upper pro scale
2.2KD x 190 + 19000 / 18 = 1078

Even though you don’t kill much, the completed objectives brings the score up. But a good KD ratio with little completed objectives will get your score decent, but could benefit from helping the team.

All of the above is totally made up on the spot and probably worthless for this exercise.

(tokamak) #68

If xp would need such a formula then it shows that the xp rewards itself don’t suffice and need to be corrected like that.

Ideally xp should be the only thing to go by.

(DarkangelUK) #69

In a game with so many variables, i don’t see how going by one of those is an accurate assessment of a player.

(tokamak) #70

It’s not accurate, but it certainly is the most accurate thing. What I mean is, if you need to apply formulas after you rewarded the xp, then that means important factors aren’t being included in-game. If that were the case you might as well put xp on the backseat, use your improved model and use that as an in-game indicator for handing out unlocks and on scoreboards.

(DarkangelUK) #71

XP can be an indication of skill, or purely an indication of amount of time played. I could play for a week solid and get 20,000 XP, someone could play for 3 days and get 20,000 XP and be much better than me, but because its purely based on XP that is no indication of how good I am… but as far as the game is concerned, i’m as good as him because i have the same XP which is wrong. Just because I have the time to play it day in day it, doesn’t mean i should be classed as ‘skilled’. The formula takes into account it took me over double the time to accumulate that XP and scores it accordingly, matching me with people in my same skill area.

(tokamak) #72

Sure, but I was now talking about xp distribution which is what your formula could be capable off as well. From there on you only need to divide it by time played to get the right indicator again.

(MILFandCookies) #73

Im fine with the formula which you suggested DA, although it basically comes down to which variables you value the most. :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #74

It’s not that subjective though, what you value the most isn’t important if it doesn’t win you the match. What actually caused the win is rather highly complex rather than a matter of opinion.

In hindsight every match is just one big equation crunching away.

(MILFandCookies) #75

No shit. It was a nice way of saying, I dont agree with his variables.

(DarkangelUK) #76

[QUOTE=tokamak;220151]It’s not that subjective though, what you value the most isn’t important if it doesn’t win you the match. What actually caused the win is rather highly complex rather than a matter of opinion.

In hindsight every match is just one big equation crunching away.[/QUOTE]

Since we’re calculating skill for match making, i purposely left out win/loss as this has no great influence on how good you are. The best player could still lose games if his team isn’t that good, doesn’t make that individual any less of a skillful player just because his team lost. I could see the point if it was a dueling type game.

(tokamak) #77

The variables are not the point, those are just an example of how a “perfect” model could look like. You can think those variables are the worst thing ever as long as we can agree that such a complex model could theoretically work.

Since we’re calculating skill for match making, i purposely left out win/loss as this has no great influence on how good you are. The best player could still lose games if his team isn’t that good, doesn’t make that individual any less of a skillful player just because his team lost. I could see the point if it was a dueling type game.

Yes, win/loss is pretty meaningless. What I’m trying to say is, calculating skill for matchmaking should be done in the same way as calculating skill for handing out rewards (without the time played division) and displayed on the score board.

Maybe I’m starting to confuse myself now.

(MILFandCookies) #78

[QUOTE=tokamak;220154]The variables are not the point, those are just an example of how a “perfect” model could look like. You can think those variables are the worst thing ever as long as we can agree that such a complex model could theoretically work.
[/QUOTE]

Again no shit it was an example. MY post was suggesting that I dont agree with his example.
Seriously, are you autistic, or do you always have trouble reading between the lines?

Maybe I’m starting to confuse myself now.

Says it all really.

(tokamak) #79

Between what lines? If your’re trying to include as little information about what you mean in your posts, then you’re succeeding. Really just reading back the thread most are just passive agressive sneers.

(MILFandCookies) #80

And if you’re trying to demonstrate that you lack the social skills to participate on a board, then likewise.
Nonetheless I was suggesting that you aren’t qualified to define what constitutes skill and what doesn’t.
You arent qualified to make any formulas - as you wouldnt know what skill was if it hit you in the face.

Passive enough for you?