Please No Win/Loss Tracking

Yes.

In the normal lobby? Yes, why should that new player be prevented from playing?

Even in CNC 3 players would just change their user name to a new account just to do this.

So it happens anyway, that's why a better scoring system that doesn't indicate wins to losses is needed.

Just including games played or wins won't change the situation at all.

Then lets use a better system then wins and losses, because a win/lose statistic doesn't judge how well you actually play, just the end result.

discrimination isn't a problem, that is the entire purpose of ratings, rating certainty and games played.

Are we really questioning the merit of ratings? If so I would suggest a new thread as this has veered off topic.

They are not forbidden from playing. They may host own games asking for "noobs only" . Taking FAF as an example there are far more games titled "low level only" than "good players only"

I am all for people only being allowed one online-account per game-key.

A pure win-loss stat or a pure game counter obviously is bad to rate players. In FAF a rating is used that works well. So you are not against "good players only"/"newbies only" games if a powerful ratingsystem is in place?
I agree on that.

@veta: the entire reason for a rating system is to ensure balanced games.

/thread

Yes.

That's why I suggested we use the economic efficiency as the games rating system, no classification on winning, losing, or time spent playing.

But on how efficient a players economy is in the games they play, so leading to the better players being the ones who waste little to no resources, and the newer players being the ones to tend to lose quite a bit more.

I'd say just use a trueskill, elo or something similar. Those are made to solve this kind of problem.

Glad we all can agree on this

A hidden skill rating for MMR would be fine in my books. Even a visible one would be great.. as long as there's no barrier to competitive players being able to rate themselves, and yet no requirement for every single player to be a part of that system (casual lobby versus rated).

Oh joy! Now upvoting and downvoting assholes becomes a thing.

Features which depend on chivalry in a public arena are a recipe for disaster. (And if players were chivalrous already, the feature would not be needed to begin with.)

I have been holding off from mentioning this, but since it is at the centre of discussion now, I might as well bring it up... preventing all skill ranges from mingling with each other has been one of the most damaging things to online play. For all the emphasis on fair games, some of the most memorable gaming moments came from trying to reach a point where you could kick other players' asses(and in turn, get your own *** kicked). Getting your own *** kicked was a real motivation to figure the game out and overcome it. When you can never face anyone vastly better or worse than you, there is no way to improve until you actively look for guides. You suck out the humanity.

And fu©k off with your advocation of one-account-per-key. Growing up with a brother who we take turns in playing online games, and depending on buying second hand for a chunk of our library(including Total Annihilation), I genuinely hated that. Your desire for an uncompromised ratings system should not take precedent over the fundemental desire to buy games to be played by anyone in the household.

You have a a ladder for that. But there is simply no point in letting a newbie play against a top 10 player. It ends in an utter defeat, the newbie feels bad for losing and the veteran gets bored. Having no way to let newbies play other newbies results in newbies leaving the game after getting a beating.

Wrong, most people run away when they only lose hard. A "hard" opponent is good, but without a rating system you quickly end up with "seemingly impossible" opponents.

I envy you for having a brother like that. But if you only take turns anyway you might as well play with only one account, if you don't play ladder

I just read through that FAF TrueSkill link. That seems like a very elegant solution.

u mad bro? I agree on one account per game key as well.

How else are you going to prevent smurfs and channel bots?

I don't know how the game will be set up but I am assuming that 1 person will start a room and that person will be able to set options. If this is the case, why not make an option (like a check box) to record stats. This way players can filter games in the game list for the type of match they are looking for.

Record Stats enabled would record all of the normal things in a ranking system. Whereas, when it is disabled, it will record games played, units lost/killed, buildings build/destroyed, planets destroyed, exc.. except win/loss.

Let me know if this is not how they are setting up matchmaking.

Colin, having to share the same username isn't the same thing. And you still just locked out a whole chunk of the game. (Along with friends lists, private messages, etc..)

And I don't know what player experiences you argue on behalf of, because in my newbie RTS gaming days, I never only faced "seemingly impossible" opponents.

You don't?...

Only the most inbred players truly give a crap about eliminating every smurf and bot from their easily bruised ranking system - to the point of making other parts of the game a hindrance for human beings to play.

You are against stats, bot you have don't care about smurfs? I don't get you at all
With removing stats you hurt the game for other players just as much. Possibly even more.

I am against removing the first sale doctrine for the purpose of eliminating a few extra smurfs to dubious effect, which is not worth it. How clear does that have to be?

The what?

I, personally, don't care about stats - and by extension, smurfs and such - so long as they don't have a negative impact on my gaming experience. Keeping track of stats (like Command & Conquer) will have a negative impact on my gaming experience. Whether smurfs exist or not won't, in all likeliness.

recent SCOTUS ruling regarding the legality of prohibiting resale

:| ok then.....

Have to agree. Mostly for personal reasons, but it's one of the negative side effects of DRM that's been permeating into gaming. I used to alway play FA with my dad even though we had one copy, but with SupCom2 we both had to purchase it to be able to play together. In the same house. It's bugger. We're not conspiring to give free handouts to the entire town, we just want to play together without having to have duplicate games in the same house. So no to the one per key nonsense. There isn't a good mechanic to keep smurfs away, as they'll always try to find a way. The best way to keep the smurfs/whatever manageable is to keep players who aren't weird entertained and happy, so that they'll play despite the annoyance.

Also, while on paper a player rating system looks good, it doesn't go well at all. Jerks and trolls will always try to screw the system up, and will typically be successful with it. Starcraft 2 uses a good method for ranked: hidden ranking system, visible ladder. The goal is to better your ladder position instead of your stats. While this encourages cheese and cheap gameplay, so does anything else, and it means that a lot of people will just play to try to win instead of play for stats. I think they only display games played, too.

It's slightly off topic, but still important discussion.