Hey, wanted to give some feedback about the ranking formula
As it is now, I find it way too punishing and biased towards non-lethal playstyle.
While the latter is of course a decision SOG has to make (reward use of non-lethal weapons), it is still almost impossible to get a decent score (>50%) even for Non-lethal players IN THE LONG TERM.
I just took the formula from post #5 Matt did.
Even if you die ONCE in 2 hours (!) of gameplay, you get maximum of 50%. Even if doing 0 penalties.
Example: 100%-((90D + 15P) / (186hrs)*100=43,5%
I find this a very ambitious aim, especially in public gameplay
Another problem i see is, there is only the mistakes of players taken into account. Like Random said, that a person played more rounds and have therefore made more ARRESTS (or legal kills) is not counted.
Sorry but i also cannot agree to the philosophy "slow gameplay = tactical gameplay". That is simply not true!
First of all the term "tactic" has no relation to time, it is an: "action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end" (Oxford dictionary).
Thus, you can very well perform a tactic fast, with teamwork, stacking properly, performing mirror/scans etc. So this attitude does not comprise the whole issue appropriately.
After all, i think the system, how it is now, is not very motivating for players in general. I mean look at the leaderboard (
http://www.sog-team.co.uk/report/statistics.php), a experienced and skilled player like Random, getting a 10-15% score? Keeries with 1 hour gameplay getting 56%?
Idk... again i like the idea behind an evaluation/ranking system... but this needs more tweaking
Greetings