Digital Paint Discussion Board
Development => General Development => Topic started by: godzilla on October 18, 2007, 02:21:22 AM
-
we should make a ranking system like
(change the names if you want ;])
private (50 total kills)
LIEUTENANT (500 total kills)
corparel (5000 total kills)
captain (10000 total kills)
general (50000 total kills)
and sooo on!
like my idea jits????
have to give full credit to eradicator tho for orig idea!
-
Use the spell checker; it's actually corporal.
I also like this idea but (yes there is always a but) this would probably mean a big code writing/rewriting for jitspoe. Since each server would have to report the amount of kills/deaths/gets/caps to a centralized server which would then have to know what to do with that information and then also each server would need to know if the person is playing against bots or what not, by this I mean that bot kills should not be counted.
If this makes no sense I am sorry and blame it on lack of sleep.
-
You lost me here:
we
We? You're going to help Jitspoe design, code, test, and implement this elaborate and unnecessary task? Sweet, thanks.
-
Don't be so rude y00tz. He's just giving some constructive input...
-
Don't be so rude y00tz. He's just giving some constructive input...
Rude? I'm being serious.
Anyway Godzilla, I forgot to mention that you should post this in the feature vote thread if you'd ever want to see it implemented.
-
I'm being serious.
:-\
"We" might also refer to the community, not exactly to him and jitpsoe.
-
well i personally think if "WE"(referring to community) should ever have a ranking system i personally think it should be done with kill/death ratio instead of total kills. Or better yet, have both. Have x amount of kills OR a certain kill/death ratio to get to certain ranks. That way people who have played awhile, even if not all that skilled, can have a good rank, while people with lots of skill, old and new, can be ranked high due to an overall ratio.
Just thinking....
-Cusoman
-
Or you could just do something like a point system. The scoring is like this.
1 kill = 1 point
1 death = -1 point
1 grab= 2 points
1 cap = 3 points
Or something like that; this would make it more challenging considering that everyone has their off days and stuff.
-
good idea KiLo, it would be sort of like the BF2 Point system then which i think is awesome.
-
Or you could just do something like a point system. The scoring is like this.
1 kill = 1 point
1 death = -1 point
1 grab= 2 points
1 cap = 3 points
Or something like that; this would make it more challenging considering that everyone has their off days and stuff.
I like Kilo's idea.
-
So umm, how do we decide what servers to track stats on, if we do?
-
Well from what I said here:
I also like this idea but (yes there is always a but) this would probably mean a big code writing/rewriting for jitspoe. Since each server would have to report the amount of kills/deaths/gets/caps to a centralized server which would then have to know what to do with that information and then also each server would need to know if the person is playing against bots or what not, by this I mean that bot kills should not be counted.
If this makes no sense I am sorry and blame it on lack of sleep.
I think it should be every server. Although once again this could be a potential flaw.
-
One problem would be, that "good" players aren't playing on public servers. So they wouldn't get as much kills as the players, who play on pubs 24/7.
-
One problem would be, that "good" players aren't playing on public servers. So they wouldn't get as much kills as the players, who play on pubs 24/7.
Need "good" players a ranking?
PS: Its a good thing, to become full pub servers.
-
Need "good" players a ranking?
PS: Its a good thing, to become full pub servers.
I agree.
A better translation of what T3RR0R15T said is this will encourage "good" players to play pubs to get higher ranks.
-
One problem would be, that "good" players aren't playing on public servers. So they wouldn't get as much kills as the players, who play on pubs 24/7.
true, which is why this is a good idea:
... i personally think it should be done with kill/death ratio instead of total kills.
however, i dont think that should be the only ranking criteria. i think one's rank should be a composite of that, along with grabs and caps. hey, maybe even a grabs-to-caps ratio could fit in there somehow.
1 kill = 1 point
1 death = -1 point
1 grab= 2 points
1 cap = 3 points
the only problem with this is that ranking someone's skill on a fixed scale doesn't account for, say, the varying difficulty of maps. cuz sometimes, capping is much harder than grabbing, so on some maps, maybe caps should be worth more.
so i dunno the best solution for that.
-
So umm, how do we decide what servers to track stats on, if we do?
All servers or have something for match servers only?
-
All servers? So I could log in, connect a few other clients, and rape my kills? Or should I just grab and drop a lot?
If only there were some type of record that factored in kills _and_ time played, i.e. Kills/Minute or something similar that doesn't hurt us working folk.
Edit: Sorry for playing devil's advocate but I'm just trying to develop this idea into something presentable.
-
I get what your saying. For the part about just dropping the flagging and getting it again. Would it be possible to make a rule inside the code saying that you only give points for this like every 30 seconds or something.
-
gj yootz, cuz ya, it will have to be well thought-out.
-
I guess this idea would only work if the idea of "Official" servers is introduced.
I think caps/grabs should be kept as a different stat tho, not like Kilo said (record everything in points). So we could have a K/D ratio, and maybe something like a Cap/Grab ratio.
-
just like I said :D
-
probably need to show how many minutes played ( on a team)
I wouldn't count grabs, just caps
deaths per minute
kills per minute
-
people who play blitz non-stop will have a higher k/m than someone who plays a real map
-
Or you could just do something like a point system. The scoring is like this.
1 kill = 1 point
1 death = -1 point
1 grab= 2 points
1 cap = 3 points
Or something like that; this would make it more challenging considering that everyone has their off days and stuff.
Thats a pretty good idea...but get rid of that for maps that use speed spawn cuz then you'll get loads of spawners...and they'll have the highest kills and like less than half in deaths.
-
It could possible be written in code that the minimum respawn time for servers to report stats would be like 30 or whatever number.
-
Mmhm. I think it'd just be easier to have 'Official' servers, though.
-
Make that 16 player official servers with no low respawns and I am happy.
-
sheesh, y'all almost make it sound like it (ranking system) would be more trouble than it's worth. :P
-
guys i think we should all agree that a ranking system would be good so that leaders of clans could check out there profile or something.
theres lots of ideas on how to do it so we should all combine them.
maybe you can only get points form a private server if your matching or sumfin because then it is unfair that someone who plays a low spawn time map because they can just keep spawning the other team.
-
well one thought that just occurred to me is perhaps a clan based ranking system instead of a global ranking system. In the clan ranking system you could do k/d ratio, k/m ratios, total kills, k/paint used, or whatever, but it would be counted in matches only. How you would go about creating a system like this I don't know, but Clans could choose a multitude of criteria and then players in the clan could be ranked based on how they preform in clan matches.
-Cusoman
-
I want both! Get to coding jitspoe! ;D
-
lmao kilo i think it would take some time before it happens
paintball is not as big as a game like counterstrike or battfield.
but i like cusomans idea on clan rankings.
so when someone part of the clan gets alot of points they could become a co-leader or something higher
-
we should make a ranking system like
(change the names if you want ;])
private (50 total kills)
LIEUTENANT (500 total kills)
corparel (5000 total kills)
captain (10000 total kills)
general (50000 total kills)
and sooo on!
like my idea jits????
have to give full credit to eradicator tho for orig idea!
Thanks Godzilla, but I'm not the only one who has had this idea and I probally wasn't the first to think of it either, but thanks!
anywhoo, I think those numbers should be way higher for stadards of ranking, but thats a pretty good idea.
But....I was goin for the idea that rankings should be related to those in games such as RS where there is #'s 1-(how ever many there needs to be). Also I think Kilo's idea definitly needs to be incorperated into this as well. His idea is what can seperate people who try from people who don't try(camping excessively) and dont follow rules.
And as soon as a hacker is detected he gets kicked off the list and has to start over when he gets unbanned.(another idea).
And listen I may not know almost anything about developing but I sure as h.e.l.l would like to help out in any way I can, and I really want a chance, so don't ignor this.
Peace for now.
-
I think the only way something like this could really work out is if it were strictly limited to match environments. Otherwise people will jump on a speed server, spawn camp for a few minutes and get 500 kills to improve their rank, or constantly switch over to the winning team, and use other cheap tactics to get points. Match only stats would:
a) Promote matching and clan activity.
b) Reduce stress on the stats/login server, since matches aren't as frequent as pub play.
c) Allow for more team-oriented scoring (ie: award points for matches won, rounds won, flag captures, etc.)
d) Make the stats have more meaning, rather than just how many "pub newbies you can pwn"
e) Allow for much more detailed statistics.
One thing I'd like to do is have the points scaled by the rank of your opponent. For example, if you kill somebody with about the same number of points that you have, you'd get, say, 1 point. If you kill some newbie who has almost no points, you'd get next to nothing. If you kill somebody who has like twice as many points as you, maybe you get 2 points. This would encourage people to match against higher-ranked players so they can rank up faster rather than repeatedly preying on newer clans to pad their stats. It would also allow the skilled players to quickly climb up in their ranking and it would be more about who is has skill rather than who has the most free time to rake up points.
-
One thing I'd like to do is have the points scaled by the rank of your opponent. For example, if you kill somebody with about the same number of points that you have, you'd get, say, 1 point. If you kill some newbie who has almost no points, you'd get next to nothing. If you kill somebody who has like twice as many points as you, maybe you get 2 points. This would encourage people to match against higher-ranked players so they can rank up faster rather than repeatedly preying on newer clans to pad their stats. It would also allow the skilled players to quickly climb up in their ranking and it would be more about who is has skill rather than who has the most free time to rake up points.
Well the only problem with what you said is that clans wont want to match clans worse then them, only better, which means if clan A wants to match B, who is better, B will refuse because it wants to match C, which in turn wants to match D, up the line so no matching goes on. my scenario is a bit of an overkill yes, but new clans will definitely not have as many matching opportunities as older clans. A way to fix this is to have a semi-standard. meaning if u are at a certain rank, then no matter who you kill, aside from the rank of newby, you get the same points, so that way elders will match newer members and vise versa.
-Cusoman
-
Exactly Jitspoe, that's what I was indirectly getting at on the page over, it's an alright idea in practice, not original, and definitely not perfect, but maybe if someone smooths out the rough edges it might be something worth voting for.
-
If this would come, the speed server has no ranking, of course. Its a fun server.
What about PONG and KOTH ?
-
Well the only problem with what you said is that clans wont want to match clans worse then them, only better, which means if clan A wants to match B, who is better, B will refuse because it wants to match C, which in turn wants to match D, up the line so no matching goes on. my scenario is a bit of an overkill yes, but new clans will definitely not have as many matching opportunities as older clans. A way to fix this is to have a semi-standard. meaning if u are at a certain rank, then no matter who you kill, aside from the rank of newby, you get the same points, so that way elders will match newer members and vise versa.
-Cusoman
Ah, but if you match a better clan and lose, then you'd only be hurting your score. You'd want to match a higher ranked clan, but not one so high that you have no chance of winning.
-
True, Jitspoe, i forgot that you get points no matter who you match. ;) I think that maybe a test server should be run, and people that 'sign up for testing' can get the passwords and play there, people of all skill, and then have a test match server, where clans could play, to test out a ranking system. Personally i think the newly promoted committee should create a separate topic about this, or you could use this one, and could read everyones opinion. then they should decide on a system, and create a test server to see how it works in reality, not just on paper.
-Cusoman
-
I volunteer to be one of the people in cusomans idea :D
-
Maybe server admins like the GT's could make like a server and call it GT ranked server 1. But all the other server admins could do this too. Also speed servers should be unranked servers.
-
I got two more little toughts for this:
1. another fun stat to have would be who you have kiled the most out of the whole dp community
2. total paintballs used in "ranked" servers
-
I got an idea. There should be a special server that has the same map and game mode all the time, and records the score in Kilo's way.
-
well another idea that just crossed my mind, instead of having one ranking system that judges based on weighted criteria, what if there were multiple ranking systems. one for k/d ratio, one for least paint used per kill, one for most killz, one for least deaths, one for total paintballs used (i agree with eradicator), and so on..... Yes i realize this would have multiple "best players of DP" which i don't think would be bad.
-Cusoman
-
Yes but what I'm saying is basically there would be a link at the top(such as forum) and it would say global ranking system and you type in your name and it has your number next to it (what place: ex.. 1. JiGsAW) and then goin across all yours stats. set up just like the in-game scorboard but with a ranking next to it.
-
You lost me here:
We? You're going to help Jitspoe design, code, test, and implement this elaborate and unnecessary task? Sweet, thanks.
hahahahahahahaha XD Good one man :)
-
Threads from 2007.
French players are dumb.
-
Threads from 2007.
French players are dumb.
You're right. Althought, I'm Canadian... Not French. Nice try though.
-
French Canadian...
-
This game should have challenges like in COD Modern Warfare 2 that make your climb the ranks faster than killing people. The challenges should increase your rank by difficulty, harder ones make you get closer to being promoted, easier ones make you get closer by little.
-
This game should have challenges like in COD Modern Warfare 2 that make your climb the ranks faster than killing people. The challenges should increase your rank by difficulty, harder ones make you get closer to being promoted, easier ones make you get closer by little.
Create a feature vote for it. You'll need to explain that in greater detail though. Like:
- Whats the highest rank?
- What happens when you get to the highest rank? New gun? New game? Emblem? Unlockables?
- Who determines what the challenges are
- What would the challenges be? Kill 100 people with a Carbine? (Baring in mind this could encourage spawn camping again...)
Personally, I think rewards are a good idea. But for your K/D ratio in a game, you get rewarded points. So if you have a K/D ratio of 0.71 you get 71 points. If you have a ratio of 3.56 you get 356 points - with the highest ratio possible being 5.00 (500 points), then, once you've collaborated a sufficient amount of points you can buy an extra grenade, buy a new gun? etc. etc... But this could be getting to much based on Cod..
-
This game should have challenges like in COD Modern Warfare 2
can you all stop comparing DP2 (created as a hobby) to highly professional games like COD etc. (hundreds of professionals working on the development)?
First of all it doesn't make any sense to even make a comparison, than it would also ruin the good-old DP2 game-play. If you want to unlock challenges, go play MW2.
-
Agreed.
-
it would also ruin the good-old DP2 game-play.
The full release is definetly going to be a lot different than the alpha 1 release. the game is no where near finished. There's definently going to be major changes. I thought it would make the game a lot more interesting to have challenges in it
-
The full release
I seriously wouldn't even worry about what any "full release" would be like, at this point. :P
-
Yo, Jitspoe!
People could just go in a match with their freind and let them kill the over and over again.
Alot of people spawn camp before the match started because everyone re spawns instantly.