I’m eager to have a discussion about the so called ‘destroyed ships rating’ - and achieve the following:
- Learn exactly how it works, as this is ambiguous at best.
- Discuss whether or not it is a fair/accurate representation of skill.
How does it work exactly?
This part is the least clear. From what I understand, having discussed this with many people - the rating goes up and down based on who you kill and who you get killed by. Largely speaking, the results of various matches support this theory, but not always. I’ve had situations where I made 17 kills, died once and still lost rating. That might still be correct, but that would suggest the system isn’t without flaws - in such a situation you shouldn’t lose rating purely because you might have hit the mines of someone who has ~800 rating, or someone just got lucky.
I’d love to hear experiences/thoughts on this part - and find out exactly how it works. if the devs have some input here and could clarify that would be even better.
Is it a fair representation of skill?
In any game which displays this sort of statistics, it becomes a bit of an e-peen affair. People start comparing their ratings and use it as a membership requirement in corporations. However, does the rating really represent someone’s ability to play the game - or the way they might support their team, or is the rating inherently flawed at the moment?
Which leads me to;
Does the rating advocate or even encourage poor team play?
If the rating works the way we think it does, it is rewarding players who sit back and rack up kills. We see more and more people hitting the long-range frigates or hanging back doing virtually nothing to support their team. You see people running away from fights, warping to the edge of the map, etc. etc.
The worst part of this is, that it is punishing players who play for objectives on some game modes. For example, I love the Detonation mode and used to fly an interceptor there as it’s nothing but pure adrenaline-pumping action-filled fun. But picking up the bomb in most cases is a free ticket straight to your untimely demise. I don’t mind that, making plays is what this mode is all about. But the game is punishing players who do by literally tanking their ratings - which take a nose-dive if you engage in this type of gameplay. Meanwhile the players sitting back sniping 2-3 people and then doing nothing/running away the rest of the match, are rewarded with an increase in rating.
The second example is Combat Recon. Try facing a giant frigate ball near the enemy captain. No problem - you can make a couple of organised and timed suiicide runs with a wolfpack (see what I did there) - but again this type of behaviour is discouraged by punishing the players who do this. You take out the captain and effectively win your team the match - your rating goes down.
This leads me to this discussion. At the moment, the rating is a poor representation of actual contribution to matches. I believe it should take your contribution towards the actual objectives into account. I give you this weekend as an example, I started close to 1400 rating and after a long weekend of gaming (where we won the vast majority of the matches) even though I ended up in the top-3 on the team in 90% of those matches and 3rd/11th respectively in ‘most kills’ on the overall leaderboard on Saturday and Sunday - I still dropped rating massively. And that just because we played as a team and went for objectives?
Don’t get me wrong, the rating isn’t all that important, which is why we just go for objectives and ‘ignore’ our rating. (Read: xxxxx and moan about it to one another and just continue doing what we’re doing in the meantime - British style. :P)
But shouldn’t we be rewarding people who make those great plays that win the team the game? So that as a result, we see more of those plays? I sure as hell would find it more fun to see more giant cluster-fks than the mexican stand-offs we get in some games. Balls-deep fighting rather than playing long-distance semi-stationary duck-hunt, which is what the current method is encouraging.
I’d love to hear thoughts/opinions.