littlewhitey's Servers Forum (SA-MP/VC-MP/MTA/Zomboid)
MTA Server - 37.187.242.161:22003 => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rao on October 25, 2008, 03:45:11 PM
-
my vote is yes,of course.
-
my vote is yes,of course.
Me Too,
Im not bothered about records n stats, but it's not much fun when ppl quit the game coz theres not enuff players and i end up on my own :(
What, no winks??
-
Making the points scale to the amount of players is something I see doable.
Making records available for less players is something I don't want to, I've "broken" so many records lately, simply because there were no players in the way, so making it available for less players would make quite a few records useless.
-
i dont agree alpha.is easy brake records but you have to remeber is not only you can do it.
-
Wait, what?
What are you trying to say?
-
He is trying to say that now we all will have less noobs in the way and make records.
-
Actually, rereading it with a fresh mind, I see what he's saying.
I'm still against it.
-
lol who voted: 'Huh?This server has stats?:0' ?? ;D
-
I am in favor of lowering the number of players needed for records as much as possible. I see a limit of 3 players as the best compromise. I am also in favour of implementing a stat system that scales the number of stat points given to players depending on the number of players in the server.
First let's analyse the current system. We'll start with stat points. As I'm sure everyone knows by now, we have a hard limit of ten players that enables stat points for all players in the server. The point system is static, in that players get the same number of points for wins, second places etc. when stats are enabled, no matter if there is ten, fifteen or 32 players in the server.
Now let's look at the idea behind stats. Obviously they are here so that people can race to climb the "stats ladder" and gain fame in the server community. They should also give people an incentive to play more on the server. Ideally there should also be some kind of of way to compare individual skill from the stats.
Personally, I think the current system achieves neither of these goals. First of all there is no way to compare individual skill. Assuming your skill level stays the same, your stat points scale linearly with the number of races you race. In other words, the more you race, the more points you get regardless of skill (obviously you gain them a bit faster if you're better, but still only by a constant factor), thus you can't use stat points to compare skill. Instead people try to use the win ratio to compare skill, but this fails too because of the hard limit on stats. If you want a high win percentage, you just have to play when there are about 10 players and avoid peaks (sadly peak is right about when stats are enabled thee days). Thus we give people that race for win ratio incentive to stay away from the server at peak - not what you want when the server is dying.
So stat points can't be used to compare skill. It can't, however, be used to compare how much individual players have played on the server either, since your stats points might actually decrease! Thus, if you join the server with stats enabled, you'd better perform your best at all times, or your stats will hurt. This makes people quit sooner, when they don't want to play 100% focused any more and additionally make players want to avoid DD maps, since they hurt their stats - again, not something you want on a dying server.
So we've seen how the 10 player limit gives people incentive to speculate and in general to play less on our server. Obviously these are not good things. But what about the limit itself? It seems somewhat arbitrary. Why 10 and not 12 or 8? I assume it was set to make things more "fair". But fair how? Well, back then the focus was mostly on stat points, not records as is true today. Thus I assume that the limit was set to avoid the obvious flaw we would have without a limit, namely the scenario where we have two players on the server, where one players repeatedly wins to quickly ramp up points. By having a limit of 10, at least you need to be a lot luckier and probably also better to win every time, than you have to be with only 2 players.
This is, of course, a valid problem, but the solution of a hard limit just isn't fair. Sure it fixes the problem mentioned above, but it's still a lot easier to win with 10 or 15 players than it is with a full server. Thus we still have unfairness and the hard limit only partially fixes the problem. If we instead make stats that smoothly scale with the number of players in the server, we could have stats all the way down to two players in the server (or maybe even one) and be completely fair. Of course the exact details of how this scaling is going to work to be fair will require some thought, but the idea is good.
Now let's look records. Like with stats, they are enabled for 10 players and up. But what is the idea about records? I think most people can agree that records should reflect the very best times the players on the server can achieve. Here the hard limit causes a problem. By having a limit of 10 players, obviously people can only set records with 10 or more players in the server. This in turn means that there is a lot of luck involved in setting a record (do you start in front? do you avoid getting rammed at the start? how often does the map get voted etc.) and thus the time it takes for the records to converge to the optimum time is rather long. So in effect, the so called records, don't really reflect the best the server has to offer most of the time, but instead are determined largely by luck!
You may argue that if we lower the limit, people playing at night will grab most the records. This is probably true, but with a dying server, I think we should give every incentive for people to stay, and I think it's a lot better to have records that actually are good and reflect skill, than most records being very weak (as is the case now) and not reflecting the skill of this server but instead reflecting luck. You can clearly see this by the semi-recent drop in players causing a lot of records to be set. Now what's the fairness in that? In other words, why have an artificial limit causing more luck in setting records, than just abolishing the limit and having real skilful records? After all, it's free for everyone to play at non-peak to try and set records. This will also have the added effect that people are going to stay even with e.g. only 3 players to set records, which in turn means the server won't empty and (hopefully) more people will join.
Second, as discussed above, there is still a lot of unfairness involved in having a hard limit, since it requires a great deal more luck to set a record with 32 players than with ten. We also make sure that people that race for records don't have any incentive to stay with less than 10 players, so people will start leaving and thus the server often empties quickly if there is a drop to less than 10 players. Again, not something you want on a dying server.
Now, why did I say a limit of 3 players in the beginning and not just no limit? This is for practical reasons. If we have no limit, a person can join an empty server and retry the same map over and over until he or she sets a record. Obviously if the map is publically available, you could do this anyway, but on your own server, and come back when you think you're good enough to set a record, so this might not be a problem. It does, however, mean that it is easier to cheat and set records without being detected, so it's probably better to have some kind of limit. If we have a limit of two players, a person with two computers could just join with both of them and proceed as mentioned above. Same goes for three or more, but now it's getting increasingly impractical to do it, so I think a 3 player limit is about as low as we can go.
That's my two cents on stats and records. Let me know what you think. :)
-
wow, a nice study. 8)
I agree about the idea of the records and the 3 limit also.
For the stats points: if you could modify the stats as you mentioned, that would be cool. So playing with 5 players and winning would earn you little points compared with the full server...sounds fair!
-
waou raz0! is there any drugs behind this long suggestion? :P
I am in favor of lowering the number of players needed for records as much as possible. I see a limit of 3 players as the best compromise. I am also in favour of implementing a stat system that scales the number of stat points given to players depending on the number of players in the server.
for the stats points, i'm sure it will more equal like it. if you win really MORE points with a win with 25 ppl than a 5ppl victory, it could work. it's the same point system on the GTAIV live, but there's not a really high difference with a 16ppl (1200$) win than a 3 ppl (500$), so the more you race, the more points you get :-\
about the records, even if it's too easy to beat a record with 3 ppl, it's more a problem of skill. for a noob, it change nothing, he can't beat a record. i think it can boost the attractivity of the server if you down the limit, but only for 30 or 40 people who can beat this records.
a classification with the number of records of each player will be interesting too.
ps: it's really a pity to delete races like going down or olympic jump. i know it's boring for the 1000 times you play it but remember when you play on olympic jump the three 1st time! amazing & fresh!! i know it's not the kind of race you want for littlewhitey, but, putain, OLYMPIC JUMP!! :D
ps2: hey guys!
-
about the records, even if it's too easy to beat a record with 3 ppl, it's more a problem of skill. for a noob, it change nothing, he can't beat a record. i think it can boost the attractivity of the server if you down the limit, but only for 30 or 40 people who can beat this records.
Well, I would like to keep the regulars happy, so I think it's a good idea. IMO records should be for the good players only anyway. As I said above, records should represent the very best the server has to offer. Weaker players can race for stats instead.[/quote]
a classification with the number of records of each player will be interesting too.
I don't quite understand what you're saying here.
ps: it's really a pity to delete races like going down or olympic jump. i know it's boring for the 1000 times you play it but remember when you play on olympic jump the three 1st time! amazing & fresh!! i know it's not the kind of race you want for littlewhitey, but, putain, OLYMPIC JUMP!! :D
I agree. Many maps have been deleted because they were deemed "stats killers". If we fixed the stats system, such maps wouldn't kill your stats anymore, so maybe they could get added back in. :)
-
Well, I would like to keep the regulars happy, so I think it's a good idea. IMO records should be for the good players only anyway. As I said above, records should represent the very best the server has to offer. Weaker players can race for stats instead.
Noes, a record is supposed to show who drove the map the best, not the best player on a server. And besides, there are new players on our server who play for stats and records no matter the number of players playing when they're around :)
a classification with the number of records of each player will be interesting too.
He's trying to say that a number of records should be called something. For instance, Brujo has 10 records. That means he's falling in the category of 5-20 records, which will be called the class "Veteran" or something. I think though that doesn't solve the problem of stats/records anyway.
Stats: make them like your propose, points related to the number of players playing in the server.
Recordlimit or record minimum players: don't take 3 as a minimum. That's really too few. I think 6 would be okay. A starting grid is most of the time that wide, at least that's my estimation. But then again, we will have a discussion of what's a "fair" mimimum amount of players in order to save records :)... We could decide by using a poll or something. That's a good alternative and a more democratic way of determing a minimum I think :)
-
Noes, a record is supposed to show who drove the map the best, not the best player on a server. And besides, there are new players on our server who play for stats and records no matter the number of players playing when they're around :)
Well obviously. I think you misunderstood me. I just meant that the system shouldn't favour weaker players, thus making records primarily available for good players.
He's trying to say that a number of records should be called something. For instance, Brujo has 10 records. That means he's falling in the category of 5-20 records, which will be called the class "Veteran" or something. I think though that doesn't solve the problem of stats/records anyway.
Ah I see. That'd be cool, but indeed wouldn't solve the problem.
Recordlimit or record minimum players: don't take 3 as a minimum. That's really too few. I think 6 would be okay. A starting grid is most of the time that wide, at least that's my estimation.
I am curious to know why you think 3 players is too low. The only reason I didn't go with 1 player is to avoid cheating.
But then again, we will have a discussion of what's a "fair" mimimum amount of players in order to save records :)... We could decide by using a poll or something. That's a good alternative and a more democratic way of determing a minimum I think :)
I don't think that's going to happen. That's probably something the admins have to decide.
-
Wow Quoteing madness 8)
Anyways I haven't read the study of raz0 yet (because I'm to lazy)
but I think this is quite a good idea, but you are talking about more points
if there are more players and vice versa. But can U give more details how many
points for how many players? ??? :)
-
I am curious to know why you think 3 players is too low. The only reason I didn't go with 1 player is to avoid cheating.
Well, honestly, I think a good player/regular could set a record far too easy with that kind of minimum amount of players. My experience with racing with 3 people is that I win a lot easier (if not all the time, depending of the skill of my fellow racers). I see a chance that records could be easily broken then. And 1 (lol) is obviously no limit at all. 6 players would be fine in my opinion, as I stated earlier.
[...] but you are talking about more points
if there are more players and vice versa. But can U give more details how many
points for how many players? ??? :)
I think we first have to decide what we want (admins or all the players), brainstorm some to come with ideas and opinions. Then maybe we can think of a fair pointscale for that system.
-
But can U give more details how many
points for how many players? ??? :)
Everytime someone earns the first place, MCvarial will get -10 points ;D
A new record: MCvarial -20 points ;D
-
But can U give more details how many
points for how many players? ??? :)
Everytime someone earns the first place, MCvarial will get -10 points ;D
A new record: MCvarial -20 points ;D
Everytime someone earns the first place, I get 10 points and elbrujo loses 10 point...
:D
-
But can U give more details how many
points for how many players? ??? :)
No. ;) But seriously, no I cannot. Not at this time. Would have to put a good deal of thought into figuring out the best scoring system.
Well, honestly, I think a good player/regular could set a record far too easy with that kind of minimum amount of players. My experience with racing with 3 people is that I win a lot easier (if not all the time, depending of the skill of my fellow racers). I see a chance that records could be easily broken then. And 1 (lol) is obviously no limit at all. 6 players would be fine in my opinion, as I stated earlier.
It's a given that it will get easier to beat the current records if the limit is lowered, and thus many of the long-standing records will be broken if the limit is lowered. It won't, however, be any easier to beat records once the records have stabilized after the lowering. The only difference is that records will overall be better and closer to the optimum, and that we will see fewer records set when the server is peaking.
-
a classification with the number of records of each player will be interesting too.
He's trying to say that a number of records should be called something. For instance, Brujo has 10 records. That means he's falling in the category of 5-20 records, which will be called the class "Veteran" or something. I think though that doesn't solve the problem of stats/records anyway.
hop hop hop snipe i've got 64 records!
about the points, & on my experience on gtaIV, the difference have to be high between a 3ppl win & a 25 ppl win. perhaps 30points for a 3ppl win & 250 for a 25 ppl win? -> one player=10 points.
about the player record's classification, it will be that :
1. el brujo 64 rec
2. snipe 25 rec
3 pro2 24 rec
4 mcvarial -10 rec( pay a beer)
.....
but it's not a proposition to solve our problem, just an add-on!
-
cool, a ladder with the number of records per person would be great!
-
I refuse to pay a beer >:(
-
Stats and records are now available for 7 players and up.
-
hi guys and razo,i liked your idea,and is the better than i thoguht.now the records are avaible for 7 players.is a good nunber but do you have plans for put it for 3 players yet?
i think records show the skills of a player,not points.stats are valid too,but the most thing i like to do in mta is beat a record ;D.
i remember my first record time.was triumwiwam.and then pizza-beta,and now i have 12 records :D.i am playing better but some of records you really have to be luck to beat them.3 players is very good,but if you put 5 players i dont mean.
ty for the attention of my topic,you admins are really doing a nice work.
thnks and keep on making this server better ;)
now,a last question:what are you meaning with i ''dying server''?
-
i dont want annoying you admins,but is not the time to put 4 or 5 players?today i played,and the server was empty for the most time.
-
I will try and hear the other admins again. Originally I wanted a 3 player limit, but the other admins wanted the limit higher, thus the 7 player limit.
-
yeah, the player number is lower and lower :'(
-
i did a new poll.and i vote for 3 players now.so,have you decided now?
-
I've noticed the stats doing some funny things lately,
I played "Infurnus GT 500", My time was 02:17:68 and it said i was 2mins 36secs faster than the record :)
The same sort of thing on other maps too,
I am playing on my old pc, but it cant be that surely.
(https://littlewhiteys.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi294.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fmm108%2Felof_bucket%2Fwinner001jpg.jpg&hash=0345cdccb4579a50770c55138ea9aaa0bc53488f)
-
lol,elof ;D this happened to me too but other day.
-
I am happy to announce that stats and records are now available for 5 players and up.
-
I am happy to announce that stats and records are now available for 5 players and up.
Oh very nice. :D
-
Yeey! 8)
-
ye :D
but i dont have much time to play and my pad now totally fucked.Now for MCvarial's happy i am using keyboard :(
-
I've noticed the stats doing some funny things lately,
I played "Infurnus GT 500", My time was 02:17:68 and it said i was 2mins 36secs faster than the record :)
The same sort of thing on other maps too,
I am playing on my old pc, but it cant be that surely.
(https://littlewhiteys.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi294.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fmm108%2Felof_bucket%2Fwinner001jpg.jpg&hash=0345cdccb4579a50770c55138ea9aaa0bc53488f)
it's because of your ping elof! :P
-
I vote 5 players,cause mta is having less players.
-
I vote 5 players,cause mta is having less players.
It is already 5 players ;)
-
It is already 5 players ;)
Than set 5 players again!!! ;D
-
is not time to put 3 pl limit or maybe 1? :P
Cause server is empty most of the day
-
is not time to put 3 pl limit or maybe 1? :P
Cause server is empty most of the day
It definitely shouldn't be 1 since cheaters could easily break all the records without anyone knowing.
-
so...2 :P