Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
03-25-2010, 04:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Dravis
Kill:death ratios, similar to win:loss ratios, are not an accurate measure of success on an individual basis. The reason is that kills and deaths, and wins and losses, depend more upon teamwork than individual participation.

Participation-based ratings, however, are a much more accurate measure of individual success or participation.
Can you say the same for those that duel alot considering the FvF matches coming up? I say its worthwhile, where you can give a player a measure of performance as much based on teamwork as on individual skill.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
03-25-2010, 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devoras_Serenitus View Post
Can you say the same for those that duel alot considering the FvF matches coming up? I say its worthwhile, where you can give a player a measure of performance as much based on teamwork as on individual skill.
We are using the given context of current PVP, are we not? In that case, the smallest unit is 5v5, not 1v1. Which means that kill:death and win:loss are not an accurate measure of individual participation, as compared to formulated measurement of: damage received, damage dealt, hull repair given, hull repair received, shield repair given, shield repair received, buff given, buff received, debuff given.

Consider a support-role ship in a 5v5 match, who might have neither kills nor deaths, yet their contribution was critical toward the success of their team. Measuring kill:death or win:loss alone is not a fair estimate of that player's contribution.

In other words, yes, kill:death and win:loss are useful statistics, but they should also be qualified by participation-based ratings.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
03-25-2010, 05:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Dravis
We are using the given context of current PVP, are we not? In that case, the smallest unit is 5v5, not 1v1. Which means that kill:death and win:loss are not an accurate measure of individual participation, as compared to formulated measurement of: damage received, damage dealt, hull repair given, hull repair received, shield repair given, shield repair received, buff given, buff received, debuff given.

Consider a support-role ship in a 5v5 match, who might have neither kills nor deaths, yet their contribution was critical toward the success of their team. Measuring kill:death or win:loss alone is not a fair estimate of that player's contribution.

In other words, yes, kill:death and win:loss are useful statistics, but they should also be qualified by participation-based ratings.
not strctly true, a kill is not measured as taking someone from 100% to 0%. i do tend to do that a fair but but if i open on someone, lets say a cruiser and inflict 40k woth of damage by the time it goes boom, a second player who saw the fight and decided to assist might only inflict 5k damage but would be credited with a kill. thus even in a heal /support ship with no tactical skills equipped (and that would have to be a bop) would still have weapons mounted to fire and would still be getting equal credit on a kvd ratio

win loss would be fair also, if you play support, and you support more than yourself your side wins you get credit. this could encourage more team work even amounst pugs. I have been known to pop heals on a carrier (almost continual) under focus fire as while the pugies are trying to kill that i am moving about focusing one down after another, the really funny thing was then zerging back to carry on shotting the carrier. i think we killed 5 before they swapped to me.

However, if a good player who does everything right, top damage, top heals etc is on hte loosing team, well sucks to be in a bad pug and i feel for you (meh or me) i guess that would be a reason to get in an active guild rather than seeing the vast majority of players unguilded
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
03-25-2010, 05:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardept View Post
not strctly true, a kill is not measured as taking someone from 100% to 0%. i do tend to do that a fair but but if i open on someone, lets say a cruiser and inflict 40k woth of damage by the time it goes boom, a second player who saw the fight and decided to assist might only inflict 5k damage but would be credited with a kill. thus even in a heal /support ship with no tactical skills equipped (and that would have to be a bop) would still have weapons mounted to fire and would still be getting equal credit on a kvd ratio

win loss would be fair also, if you play support, and you support more than yourself your side wins you get credit. this could encourage more team work even amounst pugs. I have been known to pop heals on a carrier (almost continual) under focus fire as while the pugies are trying to kill that i am moving about focusing one down after another, the really funny thing was then zerging back to carry on shotting the carrier. i think we killed 5 before they swapped to me.

However, if a good player who does everything right, top damage, top heals etc is on hte loosing team, well sucks to be in a bad pug and i feel for you (meh or me) i guess that would be a reason to get in an active guild rather than seeing the vast majority of players unguilded
My point is, simple kill:death and win:loss measurements do not actually measure how much of a contribution toward those stats that individual players are making. Yes, a support ship might be 'given credit' for contributing toward a kill. But how much credit should they be given? A simple kill:death stat gives everyone who fired upon a target equal credit, which is not an accurate measure of individual success.

Or, at least, it's not as accurate as using participation-based ratings.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
03-25-2010, 05:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ipigi
I'm just saying, PVP leaderboards would be pretty neat to have. K/D stats, damage, healing, games played, how many times you quit the fight.

Have a bunch of different boards for FvF, KvK and FvK, and also for different maps as well as an overall board.

What do you guys think?
Isn't that just like the WoW arena. The PvP is star trek is suppose to be about a war, not score.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
03-25-2010, 06:18 AM
This is a very bad idea. I have played several pvp games that have kill death ratio's and leader boards. It promotes nothing but bragging, disconcertion, insults, blacklisting and favoritism. Not to mention it demotes teamwork and promotes selfish game play. Also there has not been a system I have seen yet that is fair to the entire player base in not only the way it awards credit to players, but the scoring system itself has always been biased or more often then not doesn't give credit to every player involved, team work, etc. What it does promote is nothing but stat ho's.

Here is what i mean, a perfect example. The only other game I play is nothing but one huge pvp environment played repeatedly over a large map until one side wins and the campaign starts over. This game is Battleground Europe, World War II online. A fantastic wwII sim I enjoy playing.

They implement this very system and maintain a site with servers that track everything, kill death ratios, your damages, deaths, kills, successes, failures, missions, time played, favorite units, etc. It also provides the names of people you killed and who killed you.

Now the only thing I like about this system is you get to see who killed you. Other then that it's a terrible system for many of the reasons i listed above and one very major problem. The scoring system. It only rewards the person that the scoring system recognizes as scoring the kill shot.

So your up in your spitfire or bf109, engage an enemy, battle quickly commences. You beat your opponent, damage his/her plane, get it smoking, damage the control surfaces, knock out the ailerons, slow the plane down, etc. Then at the final moments another plane dives in and kills the pilot, saws a wing off or hits any other critical spot that the scoring system recognizes as a kill, that person and only that person is given credit for the kill. So the scoring system gives them all the credit for all your work. Does it make that player the better pvp'r?

Now take into consideration a team of players working together. 4 planes out on patrol all come in contact with a single enemy plane. All four planes open up on it and together they bring the plane down. Only one of the 4 is given credit for the kill.

Then there is the other side of the spectrum. There have been two games i played that give credit to every person involved. The scoring system gives credit for every person that damages the enemy/unit. One is another flight sim, IL2 and the other was EQ2. In both games the scoring system gives credit for every person that simply hit and damages your enemy.

So again one, two or a team does a good job working together and you always have that one individual that comes screaming in or running up and whacks the enemy player once and is given full credit. So kill stealing becomes a major issue in both examples i gave.

Thus in my humble opinion until they can finally come up with an arbitrary system that awards proper credit or divide kills between players that properly promotes teams work, say if 3 people blow up a ship then 3 people are give 1/3 credit for a kill and award great team work, I find it this suggestion a horrible idea.

Talking from experience it only promotes stat ho's.

Please keep that crap out of sto..
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
03-25-2010, 06:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Dravis
My point is, simple kill:death and win:loss measurements do not actually measure how much of a contribution toward those stats that individual players are making. Yes, a support ship might be 'given credit' for contributing toward a kill. But how much credit should they be given? A simple kill:death stat gives everyone who fired upon a target equal credit, which is not an accurate measure of individual success.

Or, at least, it's not as accurate as using participation-based ratings.
had a quick look, tbh it makes a mountain out of a molehill. In addition i noticed you said when a player applies a debuff/buff to target player he should get credit for the damage done by all players (at least that was how i read it to mean). Surely he should only get credit for the percentage damage increase over the base due to the debuff/buff and not credit for the base damage itself applied by the other firing players.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
03-25-2010, 06:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelmvor
Thus in my humble opinion until they can finally come up with an arbitrary system that awards proper credit or divide kills between players that properly promotes teams work, say if 3 people blow up a ship then 3 people are give 1/3 credit for a kill and award great team work,
Here is my idea for such a solution, which measures and rewards all forms of participation and not merely killing blows.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
03-25-2010, 06:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardept View Post
had a quick look, tbh it makes a mountain out of a molehill. In addition i noticed you said when a player applies a debuff/buff to target player he should get credit for the damage done by all players (at least that was how i read it to mean). Surely he should only get credit for the percentage damage increase over the base due to the debuff/buff and not credit for the base damage itself applied by the other firing players.
I'm not sure how such a fair system can be made any simpler. Feel free to make a suggestion if you think you can whittle it down, but in my opinion this is the simplest way to keep it completely accurate.

If you read the section on Damage Assist/Mitigation more carefully, you will see that the Damage and Healing points gained from Damage Assist and Damage Mitigation components are reduced. In other words, Damage Assist and Damage Mitigation do not give 'whole' Damage or Healing points, but fractions of those points.

I am currently in the process of adding a formula summary section to that post, to make it easier for readers to understand the raw metrics (damage dealt, damage received, hull repair given, hull repair received, etc.) and how they will be formulated into participation scores and then player ratings.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
03-25-2010, 06:30 AM
*Waiting eagerly for formulae summary*
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:54 AM.