Hey immortals.

Would it be worthwhile to make a change to the pk stats to look something similar to a-p charges? Maybe just give a root score based off of 1.0 as the average value of a kill at that time? My average could fluctuate anywhere from 1-9 similar to a-p charges. Having a high score obviously means I took out some fairly talented players.

Or, even more of an indicator, is to break down pks by the total number per range. So -

Value vs. # of kills
0 - 23
1 - 46
2 - 22
3 - 9
4 - 12
5 - 4
6+ - 6

Composite score = 1.81, so, awesome.

Hours played, hours per pks, deaths, rank, pks...all of these could contribute to the value of a character.

Would it also be possible to distribute this out for chars involved in a gank? So ganking Fortressite #728 who has a value of 1 means divvying up that score so each char involved in the gang gets the value of .33 applied.

Go team.

The AP aspect gets some kind of measurement of difficulty of pk.

The dividing by number in a gank helps to mitigate those that use ganks to generate quantity.

Will give some sort of recognition and people with short ####s will try hard to improve it. Overall, it hurts the game.
Many veterans have this feeling when you watch somebody and instead of a character who is fighting for his ideals/cabal/god you see a player who is trying to boost his pk ratio.
It is getting old, really.
But since many people think otherwise, I don't know how to explain what I mean.

Getting better in PK is good, but pk skill should be a tool for a character, not a goal of a character.
When somebody deletes and then says that the goal of this character was to break 100pks, or have amusing ratio, or kill 50+ people with a healer, or kill 200 players with a bard, or have 1 pk per hour, or kill a lot with a ranger, or have the highest number of PK kills, or anything like that, it irks me.
WTF people, what are you playing for?
If you are playing for PK, that's ok, have fun. But if you are playing for the NUMBER of PKs it makes no sense other than boosting you ego. Just be fair to yourself and say "I spend many hours working (not playing) to get this number. Now I can show this number to people. I'm an idiot".

I get that you're proposing a new way of generating PK Stats, but I don't get the numbers at all.

Using the A-P value to generate PK stats doesn't take any gankyness into account at all.

To be honest, I don't see a good (and not horribly complex technically) way to improve the gank-o-meter. Ideally it would be able to differentiate gang vs. gang, but that gets horribly complex especially when you start talking about 5 vs. 3 + 2 random folks running around spreading chaos and trying to pick off whatever is left.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Forget the parts relating to ganks. Would it be possible to assign a score to a pbf using the a-p value system throughout a char's entire life?

Are you asking to see how many charges you are worth in the PBF?

Or are you asking for some other value asociated with more/new/other variables that the Gank-o-meter does not use?

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Something like:

Total lifetime charge worth of opponents.

or

Average lifetime charge worth of opponents.

or

Average lifetime charge worth of opponents, with opponents that were ganged down having their charge worth divided by the number of people that ganged them.

I know, I'm a master of clarity.

They are all interesting stats.

>Total lifetime charge worth of opponents.

This is a pretty useless number. Or at least no more use than purely total number of kills.

>Average lifetime charge worth of opponents.

Probably fairly easy to begin tracking, but not high on my list.

>Average lifetime charge worth of opponents, with opponents
>that were ganged down having their charge worth divided by the
>number of people that ganged them.

Again, I don't see this as a very good gauge of anything. Even if you take a gang of three and take down someone worth 15 charges, what is that telling you?

I still don't understand what number are you looking to get? You have asks for the above, but that doesn't really answer my question, it's just a request for data...why do you want it? what do you think it's going to tell you? I'm not seeing where any of this is better than what is already available.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

>I still don't understand what number are you looking to get?
>You have asks for the above, but that doesn't really answer my
>question, it's just a request for data...why do you want it?
>what do you think it's going to tell you? I'm not seeing
>where any of this is better than what is already available.


Theoretically, this information will bring you closer to understanding the "true deadliness" of your character. Some people (i.e., Dwoggurd) have stated that the current system of raw PK #s is inherently flawed in part because some other people (i.e., Marcus) rack up massive amounts of PK #s against bottom rung competition. (I don't agree with this, but it's a pretty common statement.) So if PBFs also had the "average lifetime charge worth of opponents," we could all come closer to determining which characters were the most deathful/skilled/etc. based on the quality of their PKs.

For example, Dwoggurd's AP gets his usual 100 PKs and Marcus's warrior gets his usual 300 PKs. Looking at the raw data, we'd say Marcus is the uber deathful player. But if we also knew what the "average lifetime charge worth of opponents" for both characters was, we could determine the QUALITY of the PKs and assure ourselves that Marcus wasn't just smacking down newbies at level 41.

So to continue the example, we might learn that Dwoggurd's "average lifetime charge worth of opponents" was .8 whereas Marcus's "average lifetime charge worth of opponents" was 1.8 .. then we'd still know Marcus is the uber deathful player and Dwoggurd, of course, would move to point out additional flaws with the data to show he was truly the most skilled and deathful.

The information is "better" because it peels another layer off the PK onion and brings us closer to quantifying player deadliness.

I think the above was tongue in cheek. Sort of.

I first of all want to say that anyone who racks up 100+ kills is going to be at least pretty deadly. Someone who racks up the amount Marcus did shouldn't even be questioned just because of the kill/time ratio. That's impressive in itself.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a cool stat to have. But, I am going to make a prediction that if they did implement it, most chars with similar # of kills would have a similar average. In fact, my guess is that the stats curve of this kill meter would probably mirror the # of kills curve. So, marcus's Djabree being in an outside standard deviation for kills would probably be also be in the outside standard deviation for average lifetime charge worth of opponents.

But I think there are quite a few hero characters worth 3+ charges and even a handful worth 6+. A handful of kill over the course of a month would really reward someone's average and indicate that they're not out just hosing tards. I would love to have an average of 2.5+.

And also, the reason I like dividing the charges by the group is that it will really show, more than the gank o meter, how worthless a character is if they continually 3v1 newbs. Having a pk average below 1 would be embarrassing. But ganking a lich and splitting up 12 charges is still worthwhile (and rightly so).

I think it would give us a better benchmark for pk stats.

Yes, I never said don't do it. I just am guessing that most of the time you will see similarities between this stat and number of pks. I do like it for using as a basis to compare characters against each other, and likeyou said point out the really sad, embarrassing gangbangers.

100 pks does not a deadly person make, unless you take it literally.

A vet with any offensive type class should be able to rack up 100 pks if they choose to prey on the newbies and kill them at every chance.

My point with that was to get a 100 pks you are going to have to be somewhat competent and kill a few skilled players. I could have said 150 or 125, but, the point still remains characters who get that many kills are somewhat deadly. I suppose one could go about trying to just kill newbies all the time, but, seriously how often does that happen? Sealing 100+ kills is a challenge and you need to be actively fighting alot to do it. By only fighting newbies you severly limit your target base and the number of fights your going to get in, especially with the amount of players in the game today.

Besides that, what I said in the pevious post was my theory on how most of the numbers would shake out. I do think it would be a nice stat to see. I'm all for more interesting #### to look at on a PBF!

Personally I've always found Marcus more dangerous. I pk more than I die, but Marcus tends to make up a noticeable proportion of my deaths. Partly that's bad matchup (e.g. trigger outlander warrior vs my orc), but partly it is because he fights more skillfully than most (e.g. timing lag better etc.). His effectiveness isn't, as far as I'm aware, heavily based on preps.

It would be a nice metric portraying the value of your pks.

If I rack up a 100 pks against newbs, my average 'charge' per playerkill might be somewhere from .5 to 1.0. Pretty subpar.

Contrary to that, I may shoot for bigger fish, get a 100 pks (25, 50, doesn't matter) and my average 'charge' might be 1.8.

It's all about the valuation as an end result. I, as a competetive player, am more interested in killing worthy opponents over killing many opponents. Right now the only metric we have is # of pks and # of losses. As Balrahd mentioned, this is often abused by killing lame ducks multiple times instead of encouraging players to kill stronger characters.

Why not go with Elo? It's the system they use to rate chess players.. Everybody starts at 1600... I know it's also used for other games like magic the gathering and scrabble. Basically, you get more points for beating strong players than a weak player and conversely, you lose more if you lose to a weak player.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

Of course, this encourages conservative play which is boring.. so I'm hoping it doesn't get implemented But I do think cool things can be done with it... Like an arena leaderboard (replacing ELO points with titles) and stuff.

If you're going to rate people for PK at all, you should use a system like this.

nt

is that final blow is often made by a random person.
You can beat #### out of a lich, he words at 20hp and Marcus sitting at Galadon pit will finish him

I'm against any system. We don't need new system, my point is that we need to remove any system making pk harvesting less rewarding.
Let people PK for enjoyment or cabal/religion purposes, not for a score.

alternatively just having pbf emailed to the one that buys it, rather than posted for all to see?

That's like the worst idea... ever. (Well not quite, but still.. )

n/t

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

nt

n/t

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

The ganging thing is mitigated slightly by the nature of ganging. You may end up killing some people you'd never kill by yourself. Your gang, as a group, may end up killing a higher number of people in total. However, since you're only part of a gang, you should only get "last hit" on some portion of those kills.

I admit I like the idea, but it seems like a lot of work for little reward. I'd rather he go ahead and finish the shaman revamp first.

> However, since you're only
>part of a gang, you should only get "last hit" on some portion
>of those kills.

No, because there's a lot of difference in offensive ability. Consider the classic shaman/giant warrior gang. The shaman summons and dispels, the warrior bashes/flurries. The warrior is going to get the final hit much more often than the shaman is.

Killing blows aren't really all that random.

While Elo like rating systems have been adapted to multiplayer situations before and I think it could accommodate Zulg's problem of gangs of varying size with a little effort. Possibly by weighting the value of any outcome based on group size vs. group size. So a win for the gang in a 1v3 situation would be worth less then the win for the person being ganged. Additionally the loss for the single guy would be less detrimental to his rating vs. what a loss for the gang would be to theirs.

But regardless of whether that is possible or not, the problem is how to define ratable games and determine the outcome in a continuous game with many groups of players where ties (non-death outcomes for CF PvP) are possible. In multiplayer situations where Elo has been adapted successfully like WoW Arena fighting and magic the gathering the games have pre-defined conditions to either not allow ties or, ties are only the final outcome of the last two participants, and they limit who can participate making ratable situations manageable. But in regular CF PvP ratings would have to be done continuously in real-time and account for ties as they are a viable PvP outcome and participation could not be limited. Creating a system that is not overly cumbersome and results in good ratings given the nature of CF PvP I think would be very difficult and certainly not worth the effort.

What could be done with much less effort I think would be rating the participants in arena fights in this manner as those fights are much more controlled and easily definable.

Anyway just my 2 cents.