I know how to fix the ranking system!

unclepickle1 · 08-09-2006

Its simple: Remove overall score! Judge people's ranks by their kills or wins. Everyone knows this would fix it, but I find it hard to believe the people at Zipper hadn't thought of it first. Here's what a conversation one morning at Zipper probably sounded like.

Bob: Hey Jim, what should we do about Socom 3's ranking system?
Jim: Maybe we should base players' ranks off of how well they do.
Bob: Nah, that's too simple and efficient. Let's create an "overall score" system.
Jim: A what?
Bob: Like a rating that everyone can see instead of looking at player stats.
Jim: Oh cool, so the better they do the better their overall score is?
Bob: No, that makes too much sense. Let's make it so if a player wins a game against players with lower overall scores their score goes down by 20 points.
Jim: Then how does it go up?
Bob: If they're lucky enough to find and win a game against players with higher overall scores we'll bring their score up by about 10 points.
Jim: Okay....
Bob: Hey I have another idea! Let's count the players MVPs as disconnects!
Jim: Are you sure the players are gonna like this?
Bob: Hey, they said they wanted a game completely different from Halo 2. This is as different as it can get.
Jim: Eh, who cares. They're going to buy it anyway. Now pass that doobie.

Congratulations Bob and Jim. Another job well done!

_-HuRRiCanE-_ · 08-09-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclepickle1

Its simple: Remove overall score! Judge people's ranks by their kills or wins. Everyone knows this would fix it, but I find it hard to believe the people at Zipper hadn't thought of it first. Here's what a conversation one morning at Zipper probably sounded like.

Bob: Hey Jim, what should we do about Socom 3's ranking system?
Jim: Maybe we should base players' ranks off of how well they do.
Bob: Nah, that's too simple and efficient. Let's create an "overall score" system.
Jim: A what?
Bob: Like a rating that everyone can see instead of looking at player stats.
Jim: Oh cool, so the better they do the better their overall score is?
Bob: No, that makes too much sense. Let's make it so if a player wins a game against players with lower overall scores their score goes down by 20 points.
Jim: Then how does it go up?
Bob: If they're lucky enough to find and win a game against players with higher overall scores we'll bring their score up by about 10 points.
Jim: Okay....
Bob: Hey I have another idea! Let's count the players MVPs as disconnects!
Jim: Are you sure the players are gonna like this?
Bob: Hey, they said they wanted a game completely different from Halo 2. This is as different as it can get.
Jim: Eh, who cares. They're going to buy it anyway. Now pass that doobie.

Congratulations Bob and Jim. Another job well done!

lmfao ahahahahahahahathats the funnist **** i heard all day ahahahahaha its probally true though...i think they just need a ranking system like battle feild 2 modern combat any one can be a 5 star and there not just 10 5 stars there over 1000 5 stars you just need morepoints then 100000 and you need to have a high points per hours average meaning you need to get a lot of points per hour and you get medals that help you move^ in the ranking system for doing good things

Kinggames · 08-09-2006

That would work, but you're not taking into account the really cool kids who sit in their room/basement all day with 5 PS2s, and rank up like that.

SmoothMoves · 08-09-2006

if they do that rank-ups will be more willing to rank up more then they already do. It would be sorta useless

Dionysus · 08-09-2006

Overall rating is a combination of all statistics, therefore it would judge who is the best player. It is just that the point system they use doesn't work, and people abuse the system.

5MinuteMajor · 08-09-2006

My ranking solution
------------------
Set ranks for certain levels of skill - not based on percentage

Overall skill = kill to death ratio + win/loss ratio (higher numbers is better. for instance 2 means twice as many kills as deaths)

an average overall skill then would be 2 - meaning the same number of deaths and kills. As well as the same number of wins and losses.

Ranks would be determined as overall skill

Fleet Admiral - Overall skill > 6
Admiral - Overall skill >5.5
Vice Admiral - Overall skill >5
Rear Admiral (UH) - Overall skill > 4.5
Rear Admiral (LH) - Overall skill >4
Captain - Overall skill >3
Commander - Overall skill >2.5
Lieutenant Commander - Overall skill >2
Lieutenant - Overall skill >1.5
Lieutenant JG - Overall skill >1
Ensign - Overall skill <1

and I would keep the enlisted ranks the same.

Facts about this ranking system
-------------------------------

Anybody could be a Fleet Admiral

Playing more wont necessarilly bring your rank up

If you stopped playing for a while, your rank wouldnt go down

Since stats start at enlisted ranks, newcomers wouldnt have great overall skill

Your rank would go up for killing and winning rounds

A problem however that just came to my mind, if this were the ranking system, people could play with ensigns and get thier overall rank up. To eliminate this I say, only have the ranked room in the rank specific rooms (captains only, ensigns only, etc.)

So thats my IDEA, i dont know if it would work, but it seems good to me.

c0mmand3r · 08-09-2006

I don't get it. I never once had a problem with the ranking system. I played from October 11 through the end of November without any problems with rank. I never cared, and actually thought enlisted was fun and you didn't have to worry about rank all that much. I won my 75 games after about 85 games and went straight to Admiral (same as Mukluk). We just played the way we always do. We didn't look for certain games. Although we never once did the small games since it hurt your rank much more then helped it. People did that to get 75 games won but ended up being stuck as ensigns in the end. How funny and Ironic.

Anyway, to this day I am still an Admiral because everyone else has negative scores. My rating is slowly dropping, but who cares about rank anyway. I got my admiral playing as I always played. I continue to play and still retain my Admiral. The ranking system is screwy, but it isn't completely inefficient. This could of gone into the rank discussion thread, though.

SmoothMoves · 08-09-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5MinuteMajor

My ranking solution
------------------
Set ranks for certain levels of skill - not based on percentage

Overall skill = kill to death ratio + win/loss ratio (higher numbers is better. for instance 2 means twice as many kills as deaths)

an average overall skill then would be 2 - meaning the same number of deaths and kills. As well as the same number of wins and losses.

Ranks would be determined as overall skill

Fleet Admiral - Overall skill > 6
Admiral - Overall skill >5.5
Vice Admiral - Overall skill >5
Rear Admiral (UH) - Overall skill > 4.5
Rear Admiral (LH) - Overall skill >4
Captain - Overall skill >3
Commander - Overall skill >2.5
Lieutenant Commander - Overall skill >2
Lieutenant - Overall skill >1.5
Lieutenant JG - Overall skill >1
Ensign - Overall skill <1

and I would keep the enlisted ranks the same.

Facts about this ranking system
-------------------------------

Anybody could be a Fleet Admiral

Playing more wont necessarilly bring your rank up

If you stopped playing for a while, your rank wouldnt go down

Since stats start at enlisted ranks, newcomers wouldnt have great overall skill

Your rank would go up for killing and winning rounds

A problem however that just came to my mind, if this were the ranking system, people could play with ensigns and get thier overall rank up. To eliminate this I say, only have the ranked room in the rank specific rooms (captains only, ensigns only, etc.)

So thats my IDEA, i dont know if it would work, but it seems good to me.

Still people are going to rank up just lke what happens on S3 all the time. If zipper did bring a style similar to yours into S3 the ranking system will just get worse. Ranks doesn't mean anything all it is, is a nice star beside your name and overall rating points that arn't in the negatives.. RANK shouldn't be used to show how skilled a player is. It's the skill. Believe me on this one but Ensigns are much better then admirals.

idubkiller · 08-09-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5MinuteMajor

My ranking solution
------------------
Set ranks for certain levels of skill - not based on percentage

Overall skill = kill to death ratio + win/loss ratio (higher numbers is better. for instance 2 means twice as many kills as deaths)

an average overall skill then would be 2 - meaning the same number of deaths and kills. As well as the same number of wins and losses.

Ranks would be determined as overall skill

Fleet Admiral - Overall skill > 6
Admiral - Overall skill >5.5
Vice Admiral - Overall skill >5
Rear Admiral (UH) - Overall skill > 4.5
Rear Admiral (LH) - Overall skill >4
Captain - Overall skill >3
Commander - Overall skill >2.5
Lieutenant Commander - Overall skill >2
Lieutenant - Overall skill >1.5
Lieutenant JG - Overall skill >1
Ensign - Overall skill <1

and I would keep the enlisted ranks the same.

Facts about this ranking system
-------------------------------

Anybody could be a Fleet Admiral

Playing more wont necessarilly bring your rank up

If you stopped playing for a while, your rank wouldnt go down

Since stats start at enlisted ranks, newcomers wouldnt have great overall skill

Your rank would go up for killing and winning rounds

A problem however that just came to my mind, if this were the ranking system, people could play with ensigns and get thier overall rank up. To eliminate this I say, only have the ranked room in the rank specific rooms (captains only, ensigns only, etc.)

So thats my IDEA, i dont know if it would work, but it seems good to me.

thats a really good idea send it to zipper

.Freed. · 08-09-2006

Then only thing that should matter in rank is k/d ratio, and win/lose ration, and mvp/win ratio. Then you get 2 points for winning, lose 1 for losing, and same thing for kills and deaths. Then there is the mvp/win ratio which if you get mvp then you get like 2 or so points. And if you quit a game it should be minus 2 points. Just keep simple.