What means more - global score or rank?

2006-04-10 23:56:17

#1

sidneysmut: Banned; +13|6779

With the first Lieutenant General rank about to be gained (and possibly General if EA award it): http://bf2s.com/player/41949026/ what means more to people?

Personally, it has got to be rank. Don't get me wrong, BlaZiN.uk has done very, very well to get his score so high (obviously in this post I am ignoring the glitchers) but how boring must it be: Strike at Karkand, Strike at Karkand, Strike at Karkand, revive, revive, revive. Or in -=RD=-Volx's case Strike at Karkand, Strike at Karkand, Strike at Karkand, support, support, support. Yawn, yawn, yawn more like.

rb378wby (or Sgt_Maxpower) have shown that they have all the true skill at this game. Maybe they do idle in armor etc etc in order to ge the badges, maybe they don't. What makes their achiement even more impressive is the fact that they have shown they are able to play BF2 with variety, and not just run around one map reviving/supplying people.

Well done to rb378wby (and Sgt_Maxpower) for showing us what is true skill in Battlefield 2.

Last edited by sidneysmut (2006-04-11 00:06:24)

2006-04-11 00:20:09

#2

Username II: Member; +3|6821

Blazin is not the most balanced player, so he's not the best example, but the difference between those people at the top of the board and the ones with the highest rank is a lot of vehicle idling.

Personally I don't think one "means" more than the other, rank is obviously harder to get.

Last edited by Username II (2006-04-11 00:20:21)

2006-04-11 00:31:52

#3

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6862|Canberra, AUS

Username II wrote:
Blazin is not the most balanced player, so he's not the best example, but the difference between those people at the top of the board and the ones with the highest rank is a lot of vehicle idling.

Personally I don't think one "means" more than the other, rank is obviously harder to get.

Rank gives you precendence for commander. That's it.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-04-11 01:20:12

#4

Sgt_Bob05: Nade Spammers Must Die; +49|6889|Australia

How can you have respect for a player like Sgt_maxpower or rb378wby and say they have the skill to play all vehicles. Sure they've got the time but no fucking skill whatsoever. Time is valueable not a skill.

2006-04-11 02:19:22

#5

sidneysmut: Banned; +13|6779

Sgt_Bob05 wrote:
How can you have respect for a player like Sgt_maxpower or rb378wby and say they have the skill to play all vehicles. Sure they've got the time but no fucking skill whatsoever. Time is valueable not a skill.

Yeah, fair enough, but BlaZiN.uk and co at the top of the leaderboard on points also must have a lot of time. Ok, not as many hours as rb378wby, but still 1576 hours in BlaZiN.uk's case is still a lot. Therefore your time comments are meaningless.

However, these players who have a high rank must have skill. Let's randomly take one badge, Expert Engineer. Sure, time played as this kit is one of the requirements, but so is 25 repair points in one round. I don't care who or what you are, that is hard to do. Also, to overcome the problem of being idle, a player needs 250 SEPERATE repairs in order to acquire this badge. That is also difficult and requires a good knowledge of the game and SKILL. We could take another badge, Expert Resupply. Again, time is an issue when gaining this badge and can result in idlers, however, 500 resupplies and 25 ammo points shows skill.

One more point, 10 lines of writing and not one swear word.

2006-04-11 02:52:02

#6

Nikola Bathory: Karkand T-90 0wnage; +163|6974|Bulgaria

Well, usually a rank stands for a certain global score.
I mean - if a person is a higher rank than you, then it's clear that he also has a higher global score.
Right?

>>>BF3 Central<<<

2006-04-11 03:23:58

#7

sidneysmut: Banned; +13|6779

Nikola Bathory wrote:
Well, usually a rank stands for a certain global score.
I mean - if a person is a higher rank than you, then it's clear that he also has a higher global score.
Right?

No, not right. BlaZiN.uk has a higher global score than rb378wby but a lower rank. Although BlaZiN.uk has the highest score he is not any type of General because he is a one dimensional player (see initial post: Strike at Karkand, medic, revive) and has not been awarded the badges needed to become a General.

You should note that all the players in the top 9 (not including the last glitcher still on the leaderboard) are all Colonels, yet rb378wby out ranks them all with a lower global score because he has been awarded the badges showing that he is a multi-dimensional player.

Last edited by sidneysmut (2006-04-11 03:29:01)

2006-04-11 03:31:54

#8

Aruba-Prime: [Expert Smoke Grenade]; +44|6962|Hamburg, Germany

The Spliff after every round.

2006-04-11 04:52:28

#9

Sarrk: O-O-O A-O A; +788|6843|Brisbane, Australia

Me personally, I respect badges, and disregard the time requirements, for example, say I had a 1st Lt as my fav victim with 10 kills, now say I compare his stats and find that of course, his points rape me backwards, but I compare the badges instead and for example, if i find that he only has three vets (In this case lets say) Resupply, Support and Assault, and if I had those + some more vets, I would consider myself to be a better/skillful player than him (or her )

2006-04-23 20:15:00

#10

domus_inc: Member; +2|6903|Brisbane-Australia

i reckon it's a bit of both hey, but leaning toward the badges. and what sarrk said - minus the time requirements. you can counteract those ones though, if you look at their SPM. if someone's got an SPM of like 0.89 then there's a fair chance that they do sit around in a tank without doing too much else, but if they've been getting badges while still doing at least some stuff then that's cool. then you can use k/d ratio to see if they have any skill at actually encountering enemies...

i think it goes to show that you can't really use any one stat in isolation.... a *TRULY* balanced player would have a decent k/d, a decent SPM, some badges (to show the skill required in meeting IAR requirements) and all this would result in a fairly decent total score, depending on the player's total time.

2006-04-23 20:16:42

#11

THA: im a fucking .....well not now; +609|6958|AUS, Canberra

neither, they both are just a result of time played.

2006-04-23 20:18:45

#12

oberst_enzian: Member; +234|6930|melb.au

the_heart_attack wrote:
neither, they both are just a result of time played.

qfe

null vote

one of the options should have been 'in game behaviour'

2006-04-23 20:50:45

#13

gene_pool: Banned; +519|6809|Gold coast, Aus.

Well, I said score. Two people could be, say, first seargent. But one could have just got the rank and the day before, was a gunnery sgt. The other person though, could be 1000 more points away to the next rank (which I have forgot atm). Thats my reasoning.

2006-04-23 21:01:06

#14

domus_inc: Member; +2|6903|Brisbane-Australia

gene_pool wrote:
Well, I said score. Two people could be, say, first seargent. But one could have just got the rank and the day before, was a gunnery sgt. The other person though, could be 1000 more points away to the next rank (which I have forgot atm). Thats my reasoning.

yeah - comparing two people of the same bracket it would obviously be score, because they are of the same rank, so that then means nothing...

2006-04-23 22:02:55

#15

ketel0ne: Member; +3|6814

I am a big fan of team score to see true player value.

Maybe some weighted combination of 3 or 4 values should be used for some top soldier ranking?

2006-05-30 10:14:55

#16

sidneysmut: Banned; +13|6779

what do we think now that we have some generals making their way up the points leaderboards?

2006-05-30 10:23:25

#17

scarface: Member; +0|6740

if you want to know if he's a good player, you've to look at the different ratio's. Not kit ratio or total k/d ratio but the weapons ratio's and vehicle ratio's.

2006-05-30 10:28:52

#18

Cbass: Kick His Ass!; +371|6882|Howell, Mi USA

Rank. it would be nice if rank overpowered points for the top 10 spots. Then no matter how much the top guys command/medic point farm they would still be out ranked for the first spots.

https://bf3s.com/sigs/bb53a522780eff5b30ba3252d44932cc2f5b8c4f.png

2006-05-30 10:47:33

#19

cmotdibbler: Member; +19|6853|The pork thing inna bun stall.

Neither. I will respect any player of any rank who plays the game in a non asshat manner. Most of the team kills and suicide punishers i have come across have been officer ranks. Rank means nothing. It's how you play the game that counts.

2006-05-30 11:00:52

#20

[R]age^B-HeKtiC^: You like that, biatch!?; +25|6991|Uk

Rank it shows your more skilled in other things, Score shows you whore shit

2006-09-05 13:28:51

#21

sidneysmut: Banned; +13|6779

even more generals now. what do y'all think?

2006-09-05 13:30:09

#22

-Solv3r-: Heia den som vinner!; +115|6745|Oslo, Norway

THA wrote:
neither, they both are just a result of time played.

2006-09-05 14:08:54

#23

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6808|London, England

Nothing matters, all or most stats can be acheived in a fairly cheap and easy way if done right. Eg: Knife KDR can be done with KP servers. High assault rifle kdr can be easily done by going medic on an IO server with the G36E. Easy stuff, stats mean bullshit now.

2006-09-05 14:14:12

#24

Sgt_Sieg: "Bow Chicka Bow Wow." The correct way.; +89|6962

Neither, and if neither existed this game would be much better. Damn you and your innovations EA!

2006-09-05 14:15:20

#25

fierce: I love [fiSh]; +167|6755

-Solv3r- wrote:
THA wrote:
neither, they both are just a result of time played.

Global score	46%	46% - 64
Rank	53%	53% - 75
Total: 139

BF2S Forums What means more - global score or rank?

Poll

Username II wrote:

Sgt_Bob05 wrote:

Nikola Bathory wrote:

the_heart_attack wrote:

gene_pool wrote:

THA wrote:

-Solv3r- wrote:

THA wrote:

Board footer