40 replies to this topic

[gabrielsoldani]

I don't see why. Isn't it as simple as having 2 extra columns for last week value and idle weeks? Then it would take at most 3 queries. And you don't even have to care about performance because they would run at the maintenance.

[Heimdallr]

Adding columns to game live data is a very bad idea.

[Rutana]

Something else that might work:
Cutting all Mission Points in half every quarter. This could go along with the Alchemist Rankings.
Older Rankers will keep their position, but it will be easier for new rankers to catch up.
Also, 3 month aren't really a short time period for somone who plays active

[gabrielsoldani]

So, if exponential decrease is not practicable for any reason, I think you should decrease more points based in people's positions, so its difficult to maintain your points but easier to ascend.
For example:
Position 1 ~ 10 loses 4 points
Position 11 ~ 30 loses 2 points
Position 31 ~ ∞ loses 1 point

[CeruleanGamer]

Something else that might work:
Cutting all Mission Points in half every quarter. This could go along with the Alchemist Rankings.
Older Rankers will keep their position, but it will be easier for new rankers to catch up.
Also, 3 month aren't really a short time period for somone who plays active

I don't think it's fair to punish active rankers in any way. I wouldn't be too happy if I'm getting points cut off the same way as that inactive guy. Only inactives should lose the points. The whole point is to get rid of inactives, not make it harder to reach the taekwon rankings.

[Viri]

You can get like 35k on a tk ranker, they'd make a pretty sick recaller in renewal.

[KataiKou]

I'd vote no on the exponential. How much you lose is way too harsh, I think. I mean, let's compare two people for 8 Weeks. They each do one mission a week, but they take breaks.

Person A does one mission a week, but only plays every other week. That's +4 points for the weeks played, and -8 total degradation. That's -4 to the total.

Person B does one mission a week, and plays every week but goes on vacation for 4 weeks. That +4 points for the weeks played, a (-1-1-1-1-1-2-4-8) = -19 to their rank, for a -15 change

They played the same amount of time, but person B gets a 4x penalty. So yeah, no on the exponential drop.

Edited by KataiKou, 19 July 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[Scott]

If you're away for such a long period, you don't deserve to retain ranker status in my opinion.

[Scott]

The exponential one is quite a bit more time intensive to implement than a straight decrease, as we then have to compare each week to each other rather than just updating the ranks as a whole, downwards. This means more likely to fail (if it is automated) or not done due to busy other schedule if it is done by hand. There are already too many little things to do and remember without adding another burden.

A straight decrease is far too lenient to players who don't actively play their ranker. It could only fail while automated if it's implemented incorrectly the first time. I'd assume you have test servers. I mean, like, you do test things before you let them go live, right?

Segregate the code from any global variables to prevent it from contaminating or messing with any other code. Or do you not have enough control and access to do that? It's easy to ask for suggestions, but I suppose you really are limited to what you actually have access to change.

[Hrothmund]

^^ If they dont actively play the ranker, they wont stay ranked for long with a -1 penalty per week.

Once its implemented anyone who isnt active is going to get knocked out of the ranks quite fast *IF* there are active TK's trying to get ranked. What it seems like a lot of people is saying is "im too lazy to do ranked missions, i want everyone above me harshly overpenalised so i only have to do the bare minimum to get ranked". for those people just wait a couple months before trying to get ranked, same result, but done fairly. If someone is putting in a lot more work than you to get ranked, they deserve their rank even if they dont play as regularly as you.

[Lycaeus]

Most games with some form of ranking system have weekly/monthly resets or adjustments with maintenance. It's not difficult to implement and it's a system that would keep active players busy

[sniperkenny]

rank healers by amount of hp restored, melee classes by amount of damage and magic classes by amount of magic damage in level groups of 20 levels.

[CeruleanGamer]

rank healers by amount of hp restored, melee classes by amount of damage and magic classes by amount of magic damage in level groups of 20 levels.

Easily abused and we all know all Suras would top the damage ranks because of their crazy damage output.

[HansLowell]

those points decrease would just affect ranked tk, so I would say you just remove all the pts and put a npc that give back all the pts with some penalty (if thats possible)

[killedbytofu]

the entire taekwon quest system needs to be redesigned. all of the quests are outdated for renewal and impossible for lvl 1-99s to be able to complete. my taekwon currently has a quest to kill lvl 130 monsters................

[Lunebeam]

With so few TK's I don't see why not just make it a set number and after that a character is just in the rank club for life such as 50-100 missions. They can't go past lvl 99 and having the bonus helps them be around third classes.

In the old days that hp and damage increase might be an amazing thing, but now with third classes?

Edited by Lunebeam, 15 June 2013 - 06:42 PM.