Rating System Discussion

[Saege Tilth]

This isn't a discussion about rather or not there should be a rating system. This is a discussion about a perspective on rating systems. There was a rating system in a game I use to play which rated players on rather or not they completed a task. The rating system was used to measure the players skill. There was other factors that dictated player skill that could be use to get an idea. These factors, I'll call "The Most Desired Factors"(TMDF) or the meta. When push came to shove, I was behind in TMDF and was competing for first place in a race against time on a map that had very little room for error. Every little thing was necessary to succeed, especially TMDF. I had an advantage other people playing the map didn't have. I had the ability to teach myself new things while others didn't and where only concerned with TMDF. I discovered a shortcut in the map and it cut off five minutes, of which the people in first place where competing on the milliseconds and now I just blew them out of the water. I made first place, but I wasn't the best player when it came to TMDF. I was the best player because I succeeded where others failed and the competition ended with me on top.

The Aftermath

This greatly angered everybody as if I was some kind of Dark Side Phil. The thing is, the requirements for winning wasn't to be the best at the TMDF, but to complete the course in the shortest time of the competition. From their point of view, I "cheated". In reality, I didn't cheat because I followed the rules of the game. I was accused of "reward hacking" in a sense merely because I wasn't the most accurate player. If that was the case, then isn't it true that the competition would be about accuracy and not about completing the course? TMDF are something players desire to complete the map, not something they needed to complete the map. My proof is in the fact I completed the map with the best time while being behind in TMDF. Instead of dealing with this reality, they changed the map to remove my shortcut I took. The fact of the matter is I did win the competition fair and square. I just didn't win the competition in the way others wanted me to AFTER the rules where made. Had they not removed the shortcut, they wouldn't have removed the need for TMDF as players would have learned the shortcut and been able to apply skill to doing it. Instead, they where removing the shortcut because they didn't want you to win if you weren't the best. This brings me to the whole point of this discussion I would like to make.

The Big Question

Should you win a competition merely because you're the best or because you completed the competition with green text? To say both is tricky, as that implies using a rule in the competition that previous outcomes of previous competitions get to dictate. This also ignores the fact that TMDF is what players are judging by and so now we have a highly opinionated system where people argue about who had the best mouse sensitivity or something trivial.

[Rohen_Tahir]

Spedrunning

[BONERMASTER]

Results only approach, which I am not a fan of, has it's place where results matter. They don't matter when I want to have fun in a game, and if you're looking for ways to bypass the game and cheat yourself a win, first of all fuck you, I hope your mommy pours water over your computer and makes you pay rent, second, you're draining the game of it's fun.
If the only reason you pick up a game is to win while avoiding playing it as much as possible (i.e. league of legends), you're wasting your time, my time, and making the game more shit for everyone else that wants to play it.

That's the same garbage I encountered in Warthunder, a sort of catch all of air, tank and sea vehicle combat game, and specifically the air portion of the game was (still is) being run into the ground by the easy mission objectives. Now normally, you'd think players would go in their fighters, try really hard to be good and whoever comes out on top would win, and you'd be right.

Except in this game, people eventually discovered that you could just make yourself a full lineup of bombers, get a dent in your skull, and do nothing else but suicide-bombing the objectives and also win, and what used to be a good solid 15-20 minute average per game, was dropped down to 3-5 minutes. If I went up against a semi-decent fighter, I had a pretty good chance of not even completing a single fight before the game was over. If you're the kind of player that values these shitty, worthless wins over having a good game, I want you to meet me and I will convince you with my baseball bat of why you are wrong.

[Tlaltecuhtli]

too many fucking words, get to the point

[Cobby]

If its a competition then I dont really care how you win so long as it is supported by the game and the rules of the game instance you're playing in (if you are playing with house rules and break those because they're not base rules you're cringe). I think in your instance they did what people SHOULD do which is change the game to fit what they want, in your example this is changing the map so their focus is more "TMDF" focused and less about map layout knowledge.

Its like playing a dungeon crawler that also has deep lore and being upset when there is a guy who likes to read all the books and such. If your end goal has many different approaches that are allowed by both the game and rules, then you cant be upset when someone takes a different approach to reach that end goal (I mean you can but the solution isnt to continue bitching about it, you change the game to make sure that approach is less viable/ not allowed/ etc.)

[cacogen]

yeah i didn't read this shit quite frankly not out of a lack of interest i'm just not as interested as you must expect me to be to read all that shit

[Saege Tilth]

If its a competition then I dont really care how you win so long as it is supported by the game and the rules of the game instance you're playing in (if you are playing with house rules and break those because they're not base rules you're cringe). I think in your instance they did what people SHOULD do which is change the game to fit what they want, in your example this is changing the map so their focus is more "TMDF" focused and less about map layout knowledge.

Its like playing a dungeon crawler that also has deep lore and being upset when there is a guy who likes to read all the books and such. If your end goal has many different approaches that are allowed by both the game and rules, then you cant be upset when someone takes a different approach to reach that end goal (I mean you can but the solution isnt to continue bitching about it, you change the game to make sure that approach is less viable/ not allowed/ etc.)

[youtube]xfKhDiUNOG0[/youtube]

Absolute haters

EDIT: Okay I'll admit the idea of meta knowledge can be overpowered compared to a new player who doesn't have meta knowledge, but has lots of skill. Changing the maps to accommodate for newer players is really what I see as the best argument for it, but in doing so, it over simplifies the game to where games don't reward you as much for being intelligent and instead reward you for being someone who has the skills of a peon. This is not a move to make for a patrician.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Results only approach, which I am not a fan of, has it's place where results matter. They don't matter when I want to have fun in a game, and if you're looking for ways to bypass the game and cheat yourself a win, first of all fuck you, I hope your mommy pours water over your computer and makes you pay rent, second, you're draining the game of it's fun.
If the only reason you pick up a game is to win while avoiding playing it as much as possible (i.e. league of legends), you're wasting your time, my time, and making the game more shit for everyone else that wants to play it.

That's the same garbage I encountered in Warthunder, a sort of catch all of air, tank and sea vehicle combat game, and specifically the air portion of the game was (still is) being run into the ground by the easy mission objectives. Now normally, you'd think players would go in their fighters, try really hard to be good and whoever comes out on top would win, and you'd be right.

Except in this game, people eventually discovered that you could just make yourself a full lineup of bombers, get a dent in your skull, and do nothing else but suicide-bombing the objectives and also win, and what used to be a good solid 15-20 minute average per game, was dropped down to 3-5 minutes. If I went up against a semi-decent fighter, I had a pretty good chance of not even completing a single fight before the game was over. If you're the kind of player that values these shitty, worthless wins over having a good game, I want you to meet me and I will convince you with my baseball bat of why you are wrong.

I thought the reason people mass-bombed was because it was an easy and risk-free way to farm the INSANE amount of experience you need to get higher tier vehicles and the INSANE amount of lions you need to sustain playing high tier vehicle repair costs

[BONERMASTER]

Insane amount of experience, yeah, maybe for the one guy that does nothing in his entire life but calculate the ideal route for his piss bomber to take and destroy the targets before anyone else can. Most others still barely made more than the average fighter, which isn't much to begin with.

Point is, didn't fucking matter if you got nothing or 1 million, you'd never get to enjoy your new jet planes because this behavior infested every single level of play, which means that after you're done spending months to destroy the game to get your shitty jet, you'd get (some) justice brought upon you by seething endlessly (like me) over the impossible to stop bombers making a speedrun out of every match you take. All your efforts to get a fancy plane to have fun with, end up rendered null and void by the very same dent-in-skull behavior that earned you your fantastic jet.

Poetic? Maybe. Devestating for the game? Absolutely. So don't do it, and better yet, don't allow your players to do it in the first place.