ANTS system - vote

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[doctorsamuri]

vote guys

[Warbirds]

No.  Stop these pointless polls.

[Thtb]

Never gonnnnnnaaaa give you up, never gooonnaaa let you down!

[DerangedGerman]

Why the hell do you bother? It's established that everyone hates it. It's also established that it'll be fixed by 2.0. Stop. Making. Polls.

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

Again:

You know it, i know it, the whole fucking world and their mother knows it, so there is no need to keep pointing it out.

[doctorsamuri]

I love it when people get all pissy just because its a topic thats been done to death 

I just wanted to see how many people will actually post

[Zyxzy]

The what?

[salan]

the launcher is something that phil works on to my understanding, doesn't need to be a dash inclusion for programming, if they wanted to change it could, or would..


I'd love to see it with hidden names, but without the %'s again.

[RikiRude5]

Wait, you guys hate it?! 

I always thought this was the best thing since sliced bread!

/end sarcasm

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

I love it when people get all pissy just because its a topic thats been done to death 

I just wanted to see how many people will actually post

once or twice sane people can cope with, but in excess to 20, not so easy.

[Sach]

I actually wish ANTS was stricter, can't remember the last time I had a genuinely close game.

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

W/L % will never give you a "close" game consistently, it is not an accurate measure skill, but this has been thrown around too much, seriously this whole topic needs to be left alone.

[Sach]

Thats what I mean, close games inconsistently would be enough. Anyway Win/loss is about the only thing you could use, although in a perfect ANTS system everyone would end up with a 50/50 ratio i guess.

[Eleven]

The community is too small for ANTS to be any stricter, I think. Stricter?

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

Thats what I mean, close games inconsistently would be enough. Anyway Win/loss is about the only thing you could use, although in a perfect ANTS system everyone would end up with a 50/50 ratio i guess.

There is W/L vs amount of games played(no just W/L %), there us overall xp levels there is CP points. all of those can be used in a measure of skill.

[Sach]

well i don't think those are measures of skill at all, infact quite the opposite, but i take your point that they are a measure of a company's power.

[Thtb]

Yes votes = Dev members ;P

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

well i don't think those are measures of skill at all, infact quite the opposite, but i take your point that they are a measure of a company's power.

W/L put against games played: the more games you play generally teh more experience you have, and if you win most of those games then you should be good - also stops people who have won all 10 of their 10 games getting put up vs people who have won 100 out of their 100 games.

Overall XP: You have to be good to have lots of xp losing takes away Xp winning gives more, so automatically the better ones will have more this way, also keeping those high xp units alive AND winning also takes skill.

CP point number: the more you win the more CP's you will have so the better people will have earned more cp's than the worse ones.

Singley they don't seem very reliable, with each of them being used together then you would get an accurate picture of who is good or not.

[GamerAndyAlly]

well i don't think those are measures of skill at all, infact quite the opposite, but i take your point that they are a measure of a company's power.

W/L put against games played: the more games you play generally teh more experience you have, and if you win most of those games then you should be good - also stops people who have won all 10 of their 10 games getting put up vs people who have won 100 out of their 100 games.

Overall XP: You have to be good to have lots of xp losing takes away Xp winning gives more, so automatically the better ones will have more this way, also keeping those high xp units alive AND winning also takes skill.

CP point number: the more you win the more CP's you will have so the better people will have earned more cp's than the worse ones.

Singley they don't seem very reliable, with each of them being used together then you would get an accurate picture of who is good or not.

2.0 will use a modified version of the ELO rating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system), so even if a great player plays a terrible player, it will have very little impact on the poor players rating if he loses (since its the expected result) and a major impact if he wins

[Sach]

well i don't think those are measures of skill at all, infact quite the opposite, but i take your point that they are a measure of a company's power.

W/L put against games played: the more games you play generally teh more experience you have, and if you win most of those games then you should be good - also stops people who have won all 10 of their 10 games getting put up vs people who have won 100 out of their 100 games.

Overall XP: You have to be good to have lots of xp losing takes away Xp winning gives more, so automatically the better ones will have more this way, also keeping those high xp units alive AND winning also takes skill.

CP point number: the more you win the more CP's you will have so the better people will have earned more cp's than the worse ones.

Singley they don't seem very reliable, with each of them being used together then you would get an accurate picture of who is good or not.

In all 3 of those points you talk about winning. I mean really If i played 100 games and lost them all i could max out my cps and vet, still wouldn't make me a good player. Ultimately they are at best proxies for win/loss ratio. Like i said though, CPs, xp etc should be taken in to account but they don't represent skill.