Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
I hope TT plans to replace the ladder info in the registry with BHS's Renladder IP, which is my first question and my second question is if its possible to mod Renegade is such a way that if people joined through Gamespy/Direct Connect, a ladder section could be added to their client and it would be hardcorded to report to the BHS ladder just like if you joined through WOL?
Ladder stats are reported by the server, which *should* just report it regardless of GSA/WOL connection already (might shorten your nick to 8 chars). That is, if the server reports to the ladder of course.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 18:07 Ladder stats are reported by the server, which *should* just report it regardless of GSA/WOL connection already (might shorten your nick to 8 chars). That is, if the server reports to the ladder of course. Opps forgot about that, but I also meant about adding a ladder column ingame and at the end game screen to those people that connect through GSA/DC (and maybe correcting that huge gap in their scoreboards too)?
How can a ladder work if half the servers use pointsfix and the other half don't? Yes this is going to bring on shittons of needless debate, so let's avoid that. But I'd like to know how that works.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 07:15 How can a ladder work if half the servers use pointsfix and the other half don't? Yes this is going to bring on shittons of needless debate, so let's avoid that. But I'd like to know how that works. I think the new ladder will accept only pointsfix, as regardless of the gameplay effect, being able to score 1000s with a rifle against a tank is clearly going to distort the stats. No pointsfix gameplay debate please.
the original idea was to only let servers using the original renegade points system (a.k.a. pointsfix) be laddered on the TT/BHS ladder. after all, score is both a factor in individual players' case and in determining which team wins a lot of the time, so obviously a server where points are correctly awarded is more feasible for a ladder than a server where you can get points for no reason at all. of course, the same could be said for other things which affect gameplay in a counter-competitive way. ^^ that WAS the idea, then me and crimson developed the concept of a ladder "weighting" system, whereby servers with the more strategic and competitive settings (0 start credits, original renegade points system, no early !donate, no vehicle shells etc etc etc) are worth more ladder than other servers. so say if your server has vehicle shells enabled then it subtracts 20% from the contribution to the ladder, another 10% if you have weapon drops enabled, etc.
How can you determine the percent worth of these features? How about a specific game mode like CTF? How about a custom game mode that only runs on One server? How about a server that runs the points fix, has 0 starting creds etc... But has modified the maps themselves? What about servers that have modified the points system itself? Or, what about a server that complies to your specifics, but decided to modify the ladder points to boost the player stats? You would need to go on each server and make a plan and a note of each specific modification and determine the percent value, plus you need to make sure they are not tampering with the server afterwards, or performing updates to their server. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick, but you just can't balance this yourself, plus it's an on-going job. Just have each server that reports in create it's own ladder page. Sure, it's not what was planned with everyone together, but you cannot create a fair ladder in the way you're intending.
reborn wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 07:47 How can you determine the percent worth of these features? careful consideration. you said a while ago, i believe, something like "i don't wanna be the guy who decides those numbers". cheer up, then Quote: How about a specific game mode like CTF? How about a custom game mode that only runs on One server? nope, AOW/CCM only (includes marathon) Quote: How about a server that runs the points fix, has 0 starting creds etc... But has modified the maps themselves? define modified the maps? Quote: What about servers that have modified the points system itself? simple, another % penalty. Quote: Or, what about a server that complies to your specifics, but decided to modify the ladder points to boost the player stats? it's my hope that the ladder points would be decided ladder-side, cos i've already set out some alterations to them. Quote: You would need to go on each server and make a plan and a note of each specific modification and determine the percent value, plus you need to make sure they are not tampering with the server afterwards, or performing updates to their server. yes. Quote: Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick, but you just can't balance this yourself, plus it's an on-going job. and i seem to be the man for it, eh?
Oh shit, I've let myself fall into a Spoony debate. Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:24 reborn wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 07:47 How can you determine the percent worth of these features? careful consideration. I'd be interested in knowing how you come to your conclusions. Whether it's a rough estimate based on a feeling for the game environment, or analysis of data. Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:24 you said a while ago, i believe, something like "i don't wanna be the guy who decides those numbers". cheer up, then Yes, I wouldn't like to be the person that decides these percentages, simply because I do not believe it's possible to come up with a fait and balanced system. I honestly don't feel like there's anyone qualified enough to make that call. Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:24 Quote: How about a specific game mode like CTF? How about a custom game mode that only runs on One server? nope, AOW/CCM only (includes marathon) Will the other game modes have seperate ladders, then? If not, then you're dropping support for a large number of players and servers, whereas the system I mentioned would not be so exclusive and would support all servers and all players. I do not believe that alienating sevrers or players in such a small playerbase is a good idea. Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:24 Quote: How about a server that runs the points fix, has 0 starting creds etc... But has modified the maps themselves? define modified the maps? Modified maps such as placing GameObjects on maps that would otherwise not exist. Perhaps a ceiling camera, a turret, a blocker, a shed, whatever happens to take the mood... Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:24 Quote: What about servers that have modified the points system itself? simple, another % penalty. It's not really "simple" though... How do you determine what percent should be removed if the points system is modified so extensively? Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:24 Quote: Or, what about a server that complies to your specifics, but decided to modify the ladder points to boost the player stats? it's my hope that the ladder points would be decided ladder-side, cos i've already set out some alterations to them. The FDS sends the amount of ladder points a player should receive to the ladder itself. The FDS sends data such as ArmHits, ArmShots, CrotchHits, CrotchShots, HeadHits, HeadShots, LegHits, LegShots, TorsoHits, TorsoShots, AlliesKilled, EnemiesKilled, Deaths, GameTime, Kills, KillsFromVehicle, LadderPoints, PowerUpsCollected, Score, ShotsFired, Squishes, VehiclesDestroyed, TimeInVehicle, and WOLPoints. Obviously though the ladder could recalculate ladder points based on the variables supplied by the server (and whatever static info you collect for that servers (such as isrunningpointsfix == no)). Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:24 Quote: You would need to go on each server and make a plan and a note of each specific modification and determine the percent value, plus you need to make sure they are not tampering with the server afterwards, or performing updates to their server. yes. That's pretty commited, I commend you. However, even if you was in all servers that report into the ladder server 24 hours a day, to be sure nothing un-toward is happening, you would need the servers owners 100% cooperation, as there are elements other than gameplay that can manipulate the ladder points. Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:24 Quote: Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick, but you just can't balance this yourself, plus it's an on-going job. and i seem to be the man for it, eh? [/quote] You sound pretty confident, and to be honest, if I was going to choose anyone to do this job, you would be in the top of a very short list. I just do not think it's possible to accomplish what you want to do. At least not in a fair way. I honestly don't want to be saying this either. I would love a fair ladder for all players and all servers in One big list. It's a public service that you're trying to accomplish and I must sound like a right dousche bag, but this is not my intent. I honestly feel that a ladder that creates seperate pages for all servers is the best fit solution, albeit not the most desired solution.
reborn wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:24 I'd be interested in knowing how you come to your conclusions. Whether it's a rough estimate based on a feeling for the game environment, or analysis of data. it's my considered opinions on which game alterations have a negative (or in some cases positive) effect on competitive and fair gameplay. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:24 you said a while ago, i believe, something like "i don't wanna be the guy who decides those numbers". cheer up, then Yes, I wouldn't like to be the person that decides these percentages, simply because I do not believe it's possible to come up with a fait and balanced system. I honestly don't feel like there's anyone qualified enough to make that call. well, westwood made two ladders for renegade - would you consider westwood qualified? because, false modesty aside, i promise you i know a bucketload more about how to run a good ladder than westwood did. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:24 Quote: How about a specific game mode like CTF? How about a custom game mode that only runs on One server? nope, AOW/CCM only (includes marathon) Will the other game modes have seperate ladders, then? If not, then you're dropping support for a large number of players and servers, whereas the system I mentioned would not be so exclusive and would support all servers and all players. communities that run other game styles than AOW/CCM are perfectly free to make their own ladders - that's the case now and won't be any less so once the TT ladder is sorted out. if TT did make a separate ladder for, say, capture the flag (and that's a hypothetical) i certainly wouldn't be doing anything with that personally. Quote: I do not believe that alienating sevrers or players in such a small playerbase is a good idea. it certainly is a shame that the game's player base is shrinking, but it doesn't seem like an argument against the goal of making the ladder worth a damn (for a change). rejecting a particular server's data on the basis that they run - say, co-op - doesn't actually take anything away from that server, does it? nothing's changed for them at all. they've still got their server to run however they like it, they can still set up their own ladder for it. Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:24 Quote: How about a server that runs the points fix, has 0 starting creds etc... But has modified the maps themselves? define modified the maps? Modified maps such as placing GameObjects on maps that would otherwise not exist. Perhaps a ceiling camera, a turret, a blocker, a shed, whatever happens to take the mood... good question, thank you. i'll ponder that. Quote: Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 09:24 Quote: What about servers that have modified the points system itself? simple, another % penalty. It's not really "simple" though... How do you determine what percent should be removed if the points system is modified so extensively? by... thinking about it? Quote: That's pretty commited, I commend you. However, even if you was in all servers that report into the ladder server 24 hours a day, to be sure nothing un-toward is happening, you would need the servers owners 100% cooperation, as there are elements other than gameplay that can manipulate the ladder points. easy, servers that want to be part of the ladder can just declare their settings, and notify us of any changes. if they're dishonest about any of it we can dock the ladder points or whatever. trust me, i've dealt with much peskier ladder abuse than this. Quote: You sound pretty confident, and to be honest, if I was going to choose anyone to do this job, you would be in the top of a very short list. I just do not think it's possible to accomplish what you want to do. At least not in a fair way. then you can't be disappointed by the results, i suppose. Quote: I honestly don't want to be saying this either. I would love a fair ladder for all players and all servers in One big list. It's a public service that you're trying to accomplish and I must sound like a right dousche bag, but this is not my intent. no problem. i wish my ideas had already been implemented by now Quote: I honestly feel that a ladder that creates seperate pages for all servers is the best fit solution, albeit not the most desired solution. not a global ladder at all, then?
reborn wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 13:47 How can you determine the percent worth of these features? Exactly...im not saying it can't be done (because it can) but having someone monitoring and evaluating servers constantly is just redundent. A MUCH easier system would be one without variaubles, either a server reports to the ladder because of condition a b or c, or it doesn't (ex: uses the pointsfix and 0 start credits. tank shells, drop weapons, donations etc don't make a huge difference). Either way, this can be easily be put to a vote and im sure the community would side with this more simplistic approach (albeit only because they might not see Renegade gameplay in the same detail Spoony does).
here's something funny: like i said, the original idea was for servers with the fucked-up bugged points system not be count on the TT ladder at all. then later when crimson and i had worked out the ladder weighting idea so that they could count on the TT ladder... you have no idea how angry this made the anti-pointsfix crowd.
It would not be that hard to create a global ladder to be fair for everyone. Decision makers would just need to get together and decide what the most important things to include are, understanding that there is no way that every factor you could think of varying renegade gameplay cannot be accounted for. If it gets to the point where the ladder is ready to be implemented and the main problem holding it back is the mathematical part of it, (trying to make it "fair", and which factors to include, not to include). I would be more than happy to help out.
i0ncl0ud9 wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 23:28 It would not be that hard to create a global ladder to be fair for everyone. Decision makers would just need to get together and decide what the most important things to include are, understanding that there is no way that every factor you could think of varying renegade gameplay cannot be accounted for. If it gets to the point where the ladder is ready to be implemented and the main problem holding it back is the mathematical part of it, (trying to make it "fair", and which factors to include, not to include). I would be more than happy to help out. Tried to do that under the lead of Crimson, but that failed miserably. I guess now Crimson decided that Spoony could make whatever changes alone. Originally the idea was to have a team of 7 members to decide on this: http://www.renegadeforums.com/index.php?t=msg&rid=20224&prevloaded=1&amp ;th=24877 Now I don't know how many people are left of those 7, but I do know aht Neither StealthEye or me has given any opinion on this new proposed system. Something that I find kinda weird since we're not only on the original ladder team, but also on the TT-team.
Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 11:28 here's something funny: like i said, the original idea was for servers with the fucked-up bugged points system not be count on the TT ladder at all. then later when crimson and i had worked out the ladder weighting idea so that they could count on the TT ladder... you have no idea how angry this made the anti-pointsfix crowd. Yes, I remember that. @a team, no offense to Crimson but I don't think she is right for the position. She would take care of the implementation, but that topic should have never been posted here in the first place but at the clanwars.cc forums instead. I know people who don't play will not agree with this, but if you trust people that do, you will know they would be the only ones that really understand how settle changes affect gameplay.
trooprm02 wrote on Thu, 28 October 2010 18:31 Spoony wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 11:28 here's something funny: like i said, the original idea was for servers with the fucked-up bugged points system not be count on the TT ladder at all. then later when crimson and i had worked out the ladder weighting idea so that they could count on the TT ladder... you have no idea how angry this made the anti-pointsfix crowd. Yes, I remember that. @a team, no offense to Crimson but I don't think she is right for the position. She would take care of the implementation, but that topic should have never been posted here in the first place but at the clanwars.cc forums instead. I know people who don't play will not agree with this, but if you trust people that do, you will know they would be the only ones that really understand how settle changes affect gameplay. I don't think CW,cc anole is suited to do that. No wait, that is even for sure that CW.cc alone is able to do that. If you would've looked at the link you would've seen that the list was pretty much filled with qualified people. The problem with that team was that I think Crimson had the official lead, but that she due to IRL reasons could not guide the process as good as it should've been guided. If that was more organized, I'm sure there would've been a couple of good solutions on which the community could've had their last say. Also it would be silly not to include Crimson into this because she is the one hosting the ladder database + software, changes to the ladder would need to be implemented there as well.
the clear majority of "clanwars people" just don't think rationally about issues that seriously affect a ladder.
Spoony wrote on Thu, 28 October 2010 12:16 the clear majority of "clanwars people" just don't think rationally about issues that seriously affect a ladder. I disagree, and EWD that link made me post what I did. I could not imagine most of those people rating servers/ingame settings for a game that I'd play more seriously if a global ladder existed. You just don't understand this game by playing 20v20's matches in jelly marathon....You personally might not consider them rational Spoony, but they atleast have a leg up by understand how things like drop weapons, tank shells, no donating, etc affects gameplay. And thats why I feel only cw.cc alone is suited for the job. I could go on and prove my point by quizing you, EWD, on how a affects b but I won't.
trooprm02 wrote on Thu, 28 October 2010 19:31 Spoony wrote on Thu, 28 October 2010 12:16 the clear majority of "clanwars people" just don't think rationally about issues that seriously affect a ladder. I disagree, and EWD that link made me post what I did. I could not imagine most of those people rating servers/ingame settings for a game that I'd play more seriously if a global ladder existed. You just don't understand this game by playing 20v20's matches in jelly marathon....You personally might not consider them rational Spoony, but they atleast have a leg up by understand how things like drop weapons, tank shells, no donating, etc affects gameplay. And thats why I feel only cw.cc alone is suited for the job. I could go on and prove my point by quizing you, EWD, on how a affects b but I won't. Point is, not al PUBLIC players are clan players. Guess who's in the majority. Also, I might not be the best in this game, I do know a thing or two about how it should work, what is fair and what is feasible. I and q substantial amount of people on the team have shown to know somethings about running a successful server as well, which shows that PUBLIC players are happy with it. I know that CW.cc players want the game to be as pure as possible, which is fair enough, but it should be possible to customize the game to some extend, as long as the balance is kept. It's obvious that this is not easy, but it is also obvious that CW.cc players alone can't decide on this. If everyone wanted clan games/clan settings TheKOSs2 server for ex. would be tonnes more popular than it is. Oh, and I never play 20vs20 games, with the only exception perhaps community games. Edit: Fixed some grammar mistakes, just like I should've done on my previous post.
The reason why people currently play in NS and Jelly is because this server has always had good player counts. It has very little to do with game modes.
Quote: You just don't understand this game by playing 20v20's matches in jelly marathon....You personally might not consider them rational Spoony, but they atleast have a leg up by understand how things like drop weapons, tank shells, no donating, etc affects gameplay. And thats why I feel only cw.cc alone is suited for the job. I could go on and prove my point by quizing you, EWD, on how a affects b but I won't. i don't think you follow me. it's a plain fact that the majority of clanwars.cc players tend to debate important game/ladder issues in a depressingly stupid way. you're very new to clanwars.cc, if indeed anyone really considers you a clanwars player at all, so perhaps you've missed all the times when it was spoony vs virtually the entire clanwars community on an important rule decision... and it was clear that despite being in the overwhelming majority, they just didn't see how breathtakingly stupid they were being. do you want a practical example? you're way too new to remember the Soul business, so i'll pick one you're more likely to know. if most clanwars players were asked to nominate some regular clanwars players to join your consultation group, i think simpee and clearshot would probably get a lot of votes. and yet you seem to be aware of how they reacted to the ladder weighting concept, and we're not just talking about the extraordinary stupidity of their reaction, but the unbelievable dishonesty and vindictiveness of it. anyway, what salient wisdom do you think you could glean from, say, nunega about how to set up a successful ladder that you couldn't learn by asking me?
clearsh0t and simpee thought it was an outrage that pointmod servers would have more rank than original point servers i don't think they understood that it was either the proposed handicap against it or no ladder at all; if they did it was just stubbornness clanwars and public games are far different from each other, and while clanwars players are far better overall public games are closer to intended renegade game sizes more games are played publically, and the ladder should be designed to fit what we can best determine to be intended renegade why would you (troop) or anyone want only clanwars players designing a ladder that affects non-clanwars players more? because they're better at renegade? many clanwars players are great in small games but ineffective in large games because it's too different for them or they can't adjust a ladder will never be perfect, but i believe a pretty damn good one could be made
Tbh just have spoony do it and it will be 90 % perfect. That's better than any other system we could work out.
That's pretty much what I am doing. Except that I suggested weighting the servers instead of just banning ones that don't match "pure" Renegade. It's fairly simple logic that certain server settings skew results and make your points less and less reliant on skill. Settings such as weapons drop don't make much of an impact, while settings like using the broken points system have a huge impact. A database will have to be maintained with the server settings for each server and the reported settings will be public so that if you are aware of a server lying about a setting, you can report them and we can moderate.
Crimson wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 18:09 That's pretty much what I am doing. Except that I suggested weighting the servers instead of just banning ones that don't match "pure" Renegade. It's fairly simple logic that certain server settings skew results and make your points less and less reliant on skill. Settings such as weapons drop don't make much of an impact, while settings like using the broken points system have a huge impact. A database will have to be maintained with the server settings for each server and the reported settings will be public so that if you are aware of a server lying about a setting, you can report them and we can moderate. Or we just send that information along with the results?
trooprm02 wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 11:26 @liquid, its pretty clear you have no idea what your talking about, have never been any good at this game, nor know how to even run a server....I'd say save your breath. i think we do ok it's ok with me if you think i'm bad at renegade or think i have no idea what i'm talking about, your opinion isn't worth a shit to anyone just sayin putting a penalty on servers that do not run ideal settings wouldn't matter if those servers could exploit it like atomix did and get bogus ladder anyways taking 3/4 away from a ladder that gets 15x more ladder than it should doesn't solve the problem
Crimson wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 11:09 It's fairly simple logic that certain server settings skew results Yes, but evaluating and comparing advantages/disadvantages for each setting is just unnecessary and would cause too much conflict is what I was saying (not that it couldn't be done). @liquid, if you'd like to meet me in a clanwar server, ill show you exactly what I mean, as in your input into how a ladder should be run is practically invalid (based on your gameplay knowledge, or lack of it).
trooprm02 wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 22:37 Crimson wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 11:09 It's fairly simple logic that certain server settings skew results Yes, but evaluating and comparing advantages/disadvantages for each setting is just unnecessary and would cause too much conflict is what I was saying (not that it couldn't be done). @liquid, if you'd like to meet me in a clanwar server, ill show you exactly what I mean, as in your input into how a ladder should be run is practically invalid (based on your gameplay knowledge, or lack of it). For fuck's sake, you're worse than children! TAKE YOUR BICKERING TO A SINGLE THREAD IN AN APPROPIATE SUBFORUM. I WILL NOT DO IT FOR YOU THIS TIME. TROOP, STOP POSTING INSULTS. LIQUID, DON'T REPLY TO HIM, OR BAIT HIM.
CarrierII wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 23:53 trooprm02 wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 22:37 Crimson wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 11:09 It's fairly simple logic that certain server settings skew results Yes, but evaluating and comparing advantages/disadvantages for each setting is just unnecessary and would cause too much conflict is what I was saying (not that it couldn't be done). @liquid, if you'd like to meet me in a clanwar server, ill show you exactly what I mean, as in your input into how a ladder should be run is practically invalid (based on your gameplay knowledge, or lack of it). For fuck's sake, you're worse than children! TAKE YOUR BICKERING TO A SINGLE THREAD IN AN APPROPIATE SUBFORUM. I WILL NOT DO IT FOR YOU THIS TIME. TROOP, STOP POSTING INSULTS. LIQUID, DON'T REPLY TO HIM, OR BAIT HIM. We all gotta admit, it's funny hearing this of the guy that a couple of years ago though that 1vs1 was the ultimate demonstration of skill and experience in the game called C&C Renegade.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 11:58 Crimson wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 18:09 That's pretty much what I am doing. Except that I suggested weighting the servers instead of just banning ones that don't match "pure" Renegade. It's fairly simple logic that certain server settings skew results and make your points less and less reliant on skill. Settings such as weapons drop don't make much of an impact, while settings like using the broken points system have a huge impact. A database will have to be maintained with the server settings for each server and the reported settings will be public so that if you are aware of a server lying about a setting, you can report them and we can moderate. Or we just send that information along with the results? It could be done once all servers are running our patch but right now it's prone to tampering.
liquidv2 wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 14:50 trooprm02 wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 11:26 @liquid, its pretty clear you have no idea what your talking about, have never been any good at this game, nor know how to even run a server....I'd say save your breath. i think we do ok it's ok with me if you think i'm bad at renegade or think i have no idea what i'm talking about, your opinion isn't worth a shit to anyone just sayin putting a penalty on servers that do not run ideal settings wouldn't matter if those servers could exploit it like atomix did and get bogus ladder anyways taking 3/4 away from a ladder that gets 15x more ladder than it should doesn't solve the problem Obviously tampering with results will just get you flat-out banned from the ladder like A0000002W is right now.
trooprm02 wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 15:37 Crimson wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 11:09 It's fairly simple logic that certain server settings skew results Yes, but evaluating and comparing advantages/disadvantages for each setting is just unnecessary and would cause too much conflict is what I was saying (not that it couldn't be done). It's not unnecessary. It's vital to making the ladder rankings fit in with the evolution of the game.
Thread split! Thanks to liquid for reporting the messages that needed splitting. Crimson, do not triple post please!
Crimson wrote on Mon, 01 November 2010 01:44 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 11:58 Crimson wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 18:09 That's pretty much what I am doing. Except that I suggested weighting the servers instead of just banning ones that don't match "pure" Renegade. It's fairly simple logic that certain server settings skew results and make your points less and less reliant on skill. Settings such as weapons drop don't make much of an impact, while settings like using the broken points system have a huge impact. A database will have to be maintained with the server settings for each server and the reported settings will be public so that if you are aware of a server lying about a setting, you can report them and we can moderate. Or we just send that information along with the results? It could be done once all servers are running our patch but right now it's prone to tampering. And how long do you suspect it will take to get servers to run TT if they need it to join the ladder Also, having a separate database is way more prone to (unintentional!) tampering. I mean, if I would change one setting on the server, I might not think of the effects that has on the ladder db. I think that there are reasons not to do it automatically, but it's certainly not more prone to tampering. Maybe just as prone.
To be fair: if 10 servers are remotely active on Renegade, it'll be just as easy to handle manually.
@Carrier, my post was totally ontopic. I started this thread to see if a decision had been made/someone had been chosen to develop the BHS ladder policy, and now that I realize neither of these have really happened, why it would be a bad idea to have just anyone (especially bad public server players, liquid as only an example) develop it/have any input on it at all.
trooprm02 wrote on Mon, 01 November 2010 21:02 @Carrier, my post was totally ontopic. I started this thread to see if a decision had been made/someone had been chosen to develop the BHS ladder policy, and now that I realize neither of these have really happened, why it would be a bad idea to have just anyone (especially bad public server players, liquid as only an example) develop it/have any input on it at all. Heaven forbid that the public have say in how the public ladder works, it's like this isn't a dictatorship or something. At any rate, your posts broke the rules, so cut it out.
What does liquid's ability in renegade have to do with defining how a ladder system would work. The 2 are not correlated. Liquid is not a bad player. I'm not sure why you think he is. Come into marathon and you will see some bad players
oh wait he can't LMAO - edit sorry carrier i'm just doing what he would do were it the other way around any sensible person knows exactly what's going on here
liquidv2 wrote on Mon, 01 November 2010 15:52 any sensible person knows exactly what's going on here[/color] What, you losing yet another argument? @Carrier, have you been reading any of my posts? Thats exactly what im saying should happen....letting the public (which im sure you will agree) currently consists mostly of people who don't understand the dynamics of this game, is like letting the Tea Party in the US dictate how much taxes should be collected (in which case they'd say 0 and America would collapse). Its not a dictatorship if the vast majority of the people "in the know" agree on who should be coming up with the ladder policy and in this case (though I disagree with some of his dumb comments/attitudes) I'd still say Spoony is not a bad choice.
Crimson wrote on Sun, 31 October 2010 11:09 That's pretty much what I am doing. Except that I suggested weighting the servers instead of just banning ones that don't match "pure" Renegade. It's fairly simple logic that certain server settings skew results and make your points less and less reliant on skill. Settings such as weapons drop don't make much of an impact, while settings like using the broken points system have a huge impact. A database will have to be maintained with the server settings for each server and the reported settings will be public so that if you are aware of a server lying about a setting, you can report them and we can moderate. you need to list all the point system changes and see if the community likes it.
Quote: It's fairly simple logic that certain server settings skew results and make your points less and less reliant on skill. yeah just like on pointfix servers where the arty who shot the ref for 5 minuites is completely more deserving to be higher up the scoreboard than the apache shooting and killing tanks and infantry all game.
ELiT3FLyR wrote on Tue, 02 November 2010 12:31 Quote: It's fairly simple logic that certain server settings skew results and make your points less and less reliant on skill. yeah just like on pointfix servers where the arty who shot the ref for 5 minuites is completely more deserving to be higher up the scoreboard than the apache shooting and killing tanks and infantry all game. You don't understand it do you? The pointbug is a bug on which you only get insane amounts of point when the vehicle/inf has green health. As soon as they go in orange health, they give away a lot less points. Also your example is very wrong. Say that this would be a pointbugged server. GDI was spamming tanks all the time against NOD tanks and the named apache. There was also a GDI APC. The APC would do less damage to tanks than the apache, right? Well if the APC is half clever he'll get more points than the apache. How? By only shooting green healthed vehicles. If you play in a point bugged server and are not using a fast fire weapon like APC, apache, buggy or machine gun, you should make sure you're always in the yellow or red with your health. Otherwise you'll get point raped. Edit: I just though up an awesome strategy for a pointbugged server. If you got a team of say 6 people, one should get a mammy and bring it down to only health, no armour. 3 people should get an APC. 2 should be available to repair the Mammy if it goes down too much, but it needs to stay in the yellow and as last you'd need an Orca against aerial threats. Trust me, as long as you camp at the entrance of your base, you'll rape them on points. Do however try not to kill any enemy tanks, just keep them in the green health.
ELiT3FLyR wrote on Tue, 02 November 2010 11:31 Quote: It's fairly simple logic that certain server settings skew results and make your points less and less reliant on skill. yeah just like on pointfix servers where the arty who shot the ref for 5 minuites is completely more deserving to be higher up the scoreboard than the apache shooting and killing tanks and infantry all game. that was the main reason I really hated pointsfix when it came out cos I fly a lot and average a lot of vehicle and infantry kills in a game on flying maps. But I eventually came to the conclusion that no matter what the apache does, he is still playing a support role and is not directly helping on killing an enemy base (unless he is shooting a building). Also let's admit it, getting so many silly bugged points from shooting green-health vehicle is over-compensation for a flyer...not to mention how unfair it is. Don't you think? This is really commonsense imo and so I never hated those who are in an arty all game cos they are helping to win by base destruction or points. I never hated even those who are chronic arty "whores" cos they are helping your team no matter how you look at it. an apache flying around all game killing tanks and squishing havocs and sneaking hotwires is a great asset to the team but it is only a support role and in my eyes will never be as equal to an arty that, say, scores a enemy building kill after laying siege to it. A flyer would have be very self-centered and selfish to think he alone is doing a better job than a sieging arty that is actually trying to kill an enemy building. Isn't that the point of the game? To kill the enemy base? on an unrelated note, I can personally say that the pointfix made me play more harder. If I am Nod on CityFly or WallsFly and in an apache, the GDI ref is usually my favorite building to kill when during the pointsbug days, I would have never bothered to take the risk of flying/sneaking in at the right moment with a apache to kill the building with tech. The pointsbug fools pilots into thinking they are doing a really good damn job when in fact they are only getting undeserved points from green-health vehicles apart from killing vehicles and infantry. The pointsfix strips away that notion. If people were honest with themselves, they would admit their selfishness but they won't.
With the bug, you could save up for an orca, then be killed lots of times but each time have enough money to buy a new orca, which is one of the most expensive vehicles in the game. It just didn't make any sense.
Actually, I think there should be the opposite pointfix as well. One that makes the pointbug effect consistent for both green, yellow and red health. It's still absolutely ridicules, but it would at least make more sense than the current pointbugged servers.
i'll start answering your inane questions again about the original renegade points system we want to use for the renegade ladder, simpee, if only you don't dodge the answers for a change, as well as agreeing to stop ignoring the absolutely ENORMOUS problems with the point mod you advocate that i keep bringing up... does that sound fair?
I'd say shooting a ref for 5 minutes straight with an artillery is deserving of points- it means you're actually keeping the pressure on, which is how you should win a game of Renegade anyways, assuming you don't kill the enemy base entirely.
Personally I'm more of a sneak around with hotty or tech and kill buildings the easy way sort of person....but whatever works best...works best.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 01:48 I'd say shooting a ref for 5 minutes straight with an artillery is deserving of points- it means you're actually keeping the pressure on, which is how you should win a game of Renegade anyways, assuming you don't kill the enemy base entirely. Exactly, it's at least keeping one person from attacking your base/vehicles. or they would let you kill the building, which works fine as well.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 04:47 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 01:48 I'd say shooting a ref for 5 minutes straight with an artillery is deserving of points- it means you're actually keeping the pressure on, which is how you should win a game of Renegade anyways, assuming you don't kill the enemy base entirely. Exactly, it's at least keeping one person from attacking your base/vehicles. or they would let you kill the building, which works fine as well. I'm pretty sure an artillery can outdamage a single engineer (maybe not a hotwire, though- I'm rarely in a spot where there's just 1 arty and 1 hotwire or engy so I don't remember), so it's more like 2. Plus it's pretty rare to just see ONE artillery sitting there alone for 5 minutes. If the enemy team seriously lets that happen, they deserve to lose via points.
Hotties do out-repair artilleries. Edit: at least I'm pretty sure they do... I've loaded the game like twice in the past eight months lol. I've just been waiting for TT to come honestly, a huge aspect of renegade will be changing when it's released(hopefully)
Tunaman wrote on Fri, 05 November 2010 22:11 Hotties do out-repair artilleries. Edit: at least I'm pretty sure they do... I've loaded the game like twice in the past eight months lol. I've just been waiting for TT to come honestly, a huge aspect of renegade will be changing when it's released(hopefully) Hotties can out repair them, as long as the art only attacks one building of course.