skill calculation???

[Cotizi]

i know most people ( including me) feel that their really isnt a way to calculate an accurate representation of skill in bf2. mostly becuase the higher your are the more u have played and that some people argue this doesnt make a better player, it simply makes a player who plays alot, therefore rank doesnt show a sense of skill.

Therefore, i was wondering what you all would say would be the closest thing to accrautely representing a players "skill" ? points per hour? points per round? i usually look at a players points per hour played ratio to determine how EFFECTIVE a player is. then look to see if this is skewed by tank whoring or bhawk whoring and such. Just looking for opinions, since its said alot on there forums that rank doesnt = skill.

[Sovetskeey]

A person's kill/death ratio is usually a pretty good guage. Without using a big mathematical formula, it's the probably the best way.

[OriginalGangster]

Kills per death is probably the most accurate way of telling how skilled a person is, so your probably pretty skilled.

[dalemcalpine]

I agree and the rank thing. I got the game in July and I have no hope of catching the leaders....cause they play way to much for me to ever get to the top.

[SmilingRaccoon]

k/d of specific weapons, overall is crap since some ppl have 200 kills with assult rifle then 5000 with tank. Points per minute is pretty good, so long as its not a bh whore.

[D3TON8R]

tough one i'd say........

[aLLyBOOM]

k/d x score per min... this is used on some websites that i have seen.

[shadow_wolf]

I think a factor of what there is now (combat+teamwork+command) with K/D ratio maybe. Because true right now rank is meaningless.

[Tronchaser]

here

i know most people ( including me) feel that their really isnt a way to calculate an accurate representation of skill in bf2. mostly becuase the higher your are the more u have played and that some people argue this doesnt make a better player, it simply makes a player who plays alot, therefore rank doesnt show a sense of skill.

Therefore, i was wondering what you all would say would be the closest thing to accrautely representing a players "skill" ? points per hour? points per round? i usually look at a players points per hour played ratio to determine how EFFECTIVE a player is. then look to see if this is skewed by tank whoring or bhawk whoring and such. Just looking for opinions, since its said alot on there forums that rank doesnt = skill.

Cotizi, I'm looking here to see how "skewed" your numbers are... and from what I see, you are NoobNade whore.. Now, I don't mind how anyone gets their kills, but please don't say that people who use armor aren't skilled. I find armor the most efficient way to A) Kill people without getting myself killed B) Getting from one flag to another quickly and capping them and C) Enjoying the scenic routes along the way. The best litmus test to see if someone is skilled is to dadgum play with them. You can tell pretty dang quick who the n00bs are and who the people you want to be with are.

/end minirant

[Teaves]

Kills to deaths only shows the combat rating, this is nothing to do with skill whatsoever, K/D is for deathmatches. In fact some of the best players have tiny scores every map, because they spend a whole map helping out those people that then get big Kill/Death ratios

Score per minute is a little better as it takes other things into account, but this is skewed by many things, and of course still dosent take into account true team play (=skill in this, a team game) especially as many things you get lots of points for actually take no skill.

All in all i would say if the current system bothers you, then you take your stats far too seriously, as I see it they were included for your own information and to add a bit of fun. Why anyone should care so much about it that 50% of the threads here are about the ranks/stats system (and abuse of it) is totally beyond me.

There was a thread saying "well done" to the guy who plays 12 hours a day (electrik) and people actually posted in it to insult the poor guy for being a rank whore in one sentance, and to say they would be as high if they played as much in the next (ie: jealousy of a position on an online scoreboard :laugh: ) and to top it off? a huge picture of thier own stats and rank and score and awards and world ranking :thatsbad:


Gun to my head if i had to choose something to base skill on, i would say that having more or less balanced useage of ALL kits/weapons/vehicles and ALL teamwork items Supply/heal/revive. For example with 80 hours played having 8-12 hours with each class would make someone a skilled player in my mind as they dont just stick to what they like, but use what is NEEDED Also anyone that plays much more on certain maps would reduce someones "skill" in my eyes as this usually means they have one tactic or one favourite weapon etc

[SmilingRaccoon]

there no point in thinking bout this tho, EA will never change the system unless they get money in someway since they dont care about the people that play it so long as they buy the next half done game they put out.

[Cotizi]

thanks for the opinions guys.

[volkl]

Points per minute is also worthless (in addition to rank which indicates time played more than anything else). Any mediocre player can rack up points per minute throwing grenades on Karkand. Worthless statistic.

Suggestion: Make a composite matrix of all global kills (all players) showing attack category versus victim. The categories include all seven classes and all vehicle types. If either the killer or the victim is in a vehicle, then the vehicle category takes precedence over the class (assault, medic, sniper, etc).

Killer -> Victim -> Kills
Assault -> Tank -> 25
Tank -> Assault -> 500
...
Assault -> Engineer -> 2000
Engineer -> Assault -> 400
...
Tank -> APC -> ???
Tank -> Jeep -> ???
APC -> Tank -> ???
APC -> Jeep -> ???
APC -> Chopper -> ???

So what this means is that on average, for every 25 tank kills as the assault class (not in vehicle), you can expect to be killed by the tank 500 times. Normalizing, this is a 1:20 ratio. So if you, as an individual, have 100 tank kills and 200 deaths by tank (as assault), you have a 1:2 assault/tank k/d ratio. This may not sound good but is actually 10x the expected k/d ratio in the given matchup. So the skill factor in the assault/tank category 10.

Now look at assault versus engineer. For every 2000 engineer kills by assault, we might expect 400 assault kills by an engineer. This is a 5:1 ratio in favor of the assault class (again, hypothetical). So if an individual playing assault has killed an engineer (on foot) 200 times and has been killed by an engineer 100 times, he has a 2:1 assault/engineer k/d ratio. This might seem good but is actually nothing to brag about because it is only 0.4x the expected ratio. So the skill factor in the assault/engineer category is 0.4.

K/d ratios are IMO the best skill indicators but they need to be qualified with attacking category versus defending category. The individuals k/d ratio within a category needs to be divided by the respective k/d ratio of the general population to get a normalized skill factor for that category. To get a composite skill factor, you would use a weighted average of all the individual category skill factors. I see holes in this method (such as not accounting for base saves, flag captures, and support activities) but on the whole, it should be one of the more indicative formulas.

[Sheepah]

Trouble is though, we've all had certain rounds when, for whatever reason we've done absolutely bugger all. I can think of a few games where my team is so inept, and getting so battered, that I've faffed around in vehicles, and ended up with a pitiful score and k/d ratio.

[NoseKi||s]

k/d x score per min... this is used on some websites that i have seen.

That sounds solid.. but still not quite..

i'd like to add that the K/D and score/min should be only from the last moth or 6 weeks or something..

The thing is that i hadn't played FPS's in over 5 years before this, so when i reached the corporal rank, my K/d was something as lousy as 0.47.

Now i've gotten alot better and i'm getting K/D average of 2:1 pre round, but still my overall K/D is only at 1:1.