Another problem is with the points you gain. I get the same amount of
points for killing some stupid newbie that I would for killing the
best pk on server - lame as hell.
How about thinking up a system that is based on skill rather than
running around farming points and making everyone else get endlessly
behind. Some people have lives and would like to enjoy a plugin that
means more than "I just played every day for the last year killing
random people with little skill and have 5k points and you have 100
How do you _mathematically_ define 'best'?
If you can come up with a formula, i can implement it. But keep in mind the limitations:
* Not everyone is running the plugin
* not everyone can be id'd
If i were working for turbine, then this would be a much simpler task. I would have exact, trustable, valid data for everyone. The fomula could be very good.
If we can come up with a valid formula, we could create a proof of concept and design it for turbine. If we do enough of the homework for them, they might just implement it. Someday :D
> OWNEDZOR!!!111!11."- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Instead maybe we should look at the level difference between the
killer and the victim. If a level 200 killed a level 5 this should not
be worth 6 points, that's a 195 level difference. I'd personally say
the kill should be recorded but no points rewarded. But since this
game has such a high level range perhaps level brackets should be
used. Say level 1-20 is the "starting" bracket. All kills from level
1-20 to victims level1-20 should be tracked has kills and the proper
points counted. From here levels 15-50, 40-70, 60-100, 90-130,
110-180, and levels 150-275 being the final bracket. Kills will still
be tracked so people can pad their kill stats but not benifit from
farming newbs in holt for the same points as poeple in thier brackets.
Maybe even give a slight bonus for killing above their bracket, but
this might lead to farming of higher level players. Of course these
brackets aren't the best, just a rough example to express my 2 cents
on the matter. I say keep up the good work and hopefully we might be
able to fine tune the already good system you have in place to where
most poeple will find it agreeable.
Another idea might be to award the 1 point for kill shot for kills X
levels below the killer and just not award the 5 point kill bonus.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
The previous system was just as farmable as this system, except if you
were very top person on a server.
In fact, if i remember correctly, if you were to look at the previous
ratings, the top 5 players on some of the white servers had ratings of
the players on darktide, because the top 5 players just kept killing
eachother over and over, and their ratings continually went up. In
the previous system, if just a few high rated players colluded, they
could easily game the system, making it almost impossible for anyone
else to catch up.
Again, making comments like "What a joke..." hasn't helped further the
Phebus' idea of breaking up the level range into groups has some
It would break up the farming, and basicly limit it to only "farming"
within your bracket. so that could be doable.
What about something where you get points based on the id'd level?
Does anyone have stats on how you get XP based on the level of
creatures? maybe we turn it into something like that?
give you pk "xp"? including "pk xp" loss on death?
Is the xp you get from PvE on some kind of normal curve? ie, if you
kill stuff your level +/-x, you get 100%, but if the mob is 100 levels
above you, do you still get the same xp? or do you get penalized for
someone probably "twinking" you? My max char (life archer) is only
like 62, but i know i've killed stuff over level 100 by myself...
WoW, which has a much more restricted level range, has an xp curve
that is something like 0 xp for things +/- 5 level around you.
Killing stuff just slightly above your level is much better than
killing stuff that is way outside of your range...
> How exactly is making it a game of farming points better than the last system?
One more point about how this system is better than the last system:
Maintainability. I've stated before that in the previous system, it
was impossible to correct errors. One bad result could possibly
affect every other result after that point. The only way to know
would be to pause the entire system, rewind all of the data back to
that point, remove the bad record, then reprocess everything from that
People who wanted to be "removed" from the system also could not be,
because their rating would affect everyone else. If i wanted to "ban"
someone, and not let them get any more points, that would affect
everyone who killed that person from then on, because the banned
person rating would never go up...
Again, lets keep this thread constructive, not "what a joke.." style
Erase all data. All of it. All character data, all kills, all old
kills, deaths, suicides, mule kills, yada yada yada...
Create with simple categories: Ratings - Kills - Deaths - Current
*No suicides because if you're fighting multiple people and you try to
cast a ring spell, but end up dying, that is counted as a suicide if
you take more than half your health away by yourself.
When you click the individual character link on the front page you
should only have:
Name - Level - Rating - Kills - Deaths - Current Streak - Best Streak
- Worst Streak...Below that have a column, maybe in alphabetical
order? With two columbs: The players Victims/# of times killed and
Deaths/#of times killed, similiar to the old style. Or you can rank it
by Rating instead of Alphabetical.
The ratings should be like this:
Verified Kill(Killer on Corpse): +15 for whoever Killed it
Killshots and Verified Kills, etc should not have seperate categories
because currently they don't even make sense because I've killed way
more people than that, as well as verified way more people that that
and the number is still extremely low. So just have them both under
*No timer on kills, as on carebear servers that's dumb.
*People in the same guild get same amount for people outside guild
As for level differential, I'm not sure how you could do this,
especially if someone doesn't ID. I don't think this one matters much
because not many people are going to go kill newbies. But if you could
find a way for it to be like levels 1-79 = 0 Points, and level 80+ are
fair game, then I'd do that, since I think the level restriction on
the Weeping is 80+.
The current rating doesnt make sense because you are basically only
rewarded greatly for killing new players you haven't killed, so one
person can sky rocket to a high rating quite easily with a shitty
Make things easy for yourself. This is the way to go. And I'd
implement before people started getting high ratings.
And instead of ratings you could always just use Kills/Deaths/Streak
to rank players. Players with the most kills go up. If there is a tie,
least deaths goes ahead. Simple.
I can tell you that suicide = 0 will never make it. Even in your
example you've given people a way to game the system: whenever you
are in trouble, kill yourself so that you don't lose any points.
> Killshots and Verified Kills, etc should not have seperate categories
> because currently they don't even make sense because I've killed way
> more people than that, as well as verified way more people that that
> and the number is still extremely low. So just have them both under
Um.. just 4 lines ago you say: Killshot+10, verified +15...and now you
say not seperate categories? on the front page, the "kill" column is
killshots + verified kills. The only page it shows them seperately is
the detail page. If you want me to add one more line there that adds
them up there, thats easy.
> *No timer on kills, as on carebear servers that's dumb.
> *People in the same guild get same amount for people outside guild
If you take the timer off, then the ratings just shoot through the roof.
By using your criteria, lets compare our two systems, with any 2 level
12:00 midnight. player A kills player B (kill+killshot)
12:01 player B kills player A
12:02 player A kills player B
12:03 player B kills player A
12:04 player A kills player B
12:05 player B kills player A
6 kills in 6 minutes. on a pink server, totally possible. If
darktide, just multiply all those times by 5, you'd have 6 kills in 30
minutes to get these scores
12:00: A(25) B(-5) (+10 kill, +15 killshot, -5 death)
12:01: A(20) B(20) (ditto, reversed)
12:02: A(45) B(15)
12:03: A(40) B(40)
12:04: A(65) B(35)
12:05: A(60) B(60)
12:00 A(6) B(0) (+1 killshot, +5 kill)
12:01 A(6) B(6) (ditto, reverse)
12:02 A(6) B(6) (nothing, within 1 hour)
12:03 A(6) B(6) (nothing, within 1 hour)
12:04 A(6) B(6) (nothing, within 1 hour)
12:05 A(6) B(6) (nothing, within 1 hour)
Using both of our systems, the players "gaming" the system have the
same score. Yours is just inflated 10 times.
I have nothing against taking away points for kills. I don't have any
problem with that part of your idea. I do have a problem with no
punishment for suicide. Anything that gives a player a free pass
isn't a good idea. If suicide and death are treated the same, that's
fine. The very first rating system had the victim losing as many
points as the killer got (so if A got +25, B got -25), but that just
had the high ranked people running away from everything and suiciding
to avoid losing points. So from the sheer volume of those complaints,
i made deaths worth nothing so that people wouldn't run away.
But it might be time to put the negative points back in, but it
probably has to be equal to the points for a kill, or the same people
just kill eachother repeatedly to increase their scores.
> Make things easy for yourself. This is the way to go. And I'd
> implement before people started getting high ratings.
Ratings can always be recalculated. And while we're discussing, more
data is being generated, so we can take any suggested ratings and "run
them through the gauntlet", so to speak, to validate them as good or
> And instead of ratings you could always just use Kills/Deaths/Streak
> to rank players. Players with the most kills go up. If there is a tie,
> least deaths goes ahead. Simple.
Yes, but now i can just hang out in holt and kill newbs to go up.
very high kill:death ratio, little/no danger.
So right now it looks like it might be good to add a penalty for
dying, both normal deaths and for suicide?
On Feb 14, 2:05 am, "John Gardner" <gardne...@gmail.com> wrote:
If that's the case, you end up with:
12:00: A(15) B(-5) (+15 kill, -5 death)
12:01: A(10) B(10) (ditto, reversed)
12:02: A(25) B(5)
12:03: A(20) B(20)
12:04: A(35) B(15)
12:05: A(30) B(30)
Same difference, in 5 minutes, the players have gamed the system for
30 points each. if a 3rd person is involved and gets all the
killshots, that person has 60 points now, because they got 10 points
each kill. In my ratings, that 3rd person has 2 points.
I believe that a time component is a necessary part of the system,
especially on the pink servers where there's no time limit between
going pink again.
I remember being able to catch up to the top pks by killing them. I
didn't have to farm x number of kills to reach rank x; which is the
current system. There was no way for the top 10 pks to farm up to a
number that was basically unreachable in the old system; you could
always catch up quick by beating them down.
So it does look like we need a rating _based_ system like before,
where killing someone with a high rating gets more points, so that
lower rated players can move up the system quicker, and lower rated
players are worth less from a kill.
It also sounded like everyone wants point loss on death, so that
deaths were meaningful.
Do we also need "maintainance", where if you don't get a kill within x
amount of time (24/48/72 hours or something), you lose points? A lot
of rating systems have this in so that the person at the top can't
quit and stay at the top. It is even more important in ladder style
systems, where the only way to get to #1 is to actually beat #1.
I also don't think we would need a lose points over time. People
would eventually pass up the quitters by killing others that are semi-
high on the list like before. I never remember having to kill #1 just
to reach that point, and if that's how it was needs to be changed.
On Feb 21, 12:18 am, "John Gardner" <gardne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't "just bring back" the old ratings, as the old ratings only
> took killshots, no credit at all for being the actual killer. So, i
> could "just bring back the old ratings", but then everyone would be
> complaining about people just running around ganking to get points.
> So it does look like we need a rating _based_ system like before,
> where killing someone with a high rating gets more points, so that
> lower rated players can move up the system quicker, and lower rated
> players are worth less from a kill.
> It also sounded like everyone wants point loss on death, so that
> deaths were meaningful.
> Do we also need "maintainance", where if you don't get a kill within x
> amount of time (24/48/72 hours or something), you lose points? A lot
> of rating systems have this in so that the person at the top can't
> quit and stay at the top. It is even more important in ladder style
> systems, where the only way to get to #1 is to actually beat #1.
> On 2/20/07, MikeOwnsYou <MCP13...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just bring back the old ratings. They made more sense imo.
> > On Feb 20, 2:19 pm, "Skippy" <SkippyIsFor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > like that Yawn guy on solclaim for instance; kill streak of 100, with
> > > 0 deaths. . hmm
> > > On Feb 16, 12:15 pm, "MikeOwnsYou" <MCP13...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Not to mention people are killing thier mules for the same number of
> > > > points as killing a really good player.
> > > > On Feb 16, 12:11 am, "James" <jameskon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Can someone please explain to me how this new system is better than
> > > > > the old?
> > > > > I remember being able to catch up to the top pks by killing them. I
> > > > > didn't have to farm x number of kills to reach rank x; which is the
> > > > > current system. There was no way for the top 10 pks to farm up to a
> > > > > number that was basically unreachable in the old system; you could
> > > > > always catch up quick by beating them down.- Hide quoted text -
That was how it originally worked, but only for maybe a couple months?
I'd have to look back at the oldest news posts. After that, there
was no losing points, except for suicides, because too many people
were running away from fights so that they wouldn't lose points from
> I never remember having to kill #1 just
> to reach that point, and if that's how it was needs to be changed.
I wasn't saying that you did, i was just saying that real "ladder"
systems work that way. the only way to move "up" the ladder was to
beat someone on a "rung" above you. I don't really want a system like
that, as it requires the maintanance i don't want to have to do.
I'm on vacation yet, so i'm not at home to do any work, so maybe next
week i'll look deeper into a specific rating algorithm. There aren't
many systems out there that have 3 people potentially involved in
every match like AC does.... so that complicates things!