Quote:
Originally Posted by RushRiviera
So you want a rating system but, you want everyone to get an "A or "B""?
What your asking for is essentially a medal for finishing in last place...
If you make it impossible to discern one from another because you want a grade to cover such a wide range of players, what purpose does it then serve?
If 60% of the player base get an "B" what use is that? You could be right down in the 3rd Percentile and get an "B" Great job. Well done..
That player could then do some research and improve drastically to the point where they are maybe in the 58th Percentile but They'd still only get an "B".
WTF???? The exact same grade!!!
Doesn't exactly do this does it?
When players could improve significantly and still get shafted with the exact same grade.Quote:
Originally Posted by RushRiviera
So once again what purpose does it serve?
The reality is that in that situation Players would just treat that "A" like an "F". And anything less than an "S+++++" would be basically seen as crap.
You want a grading system, but you want it to lie to you and tell you you're good.
The problem with these is the better the dps are the worse grades the tank and healer will get. In a good party where that pull dies fast the tank woun't get any points for damage taken or damage mitigated. not only that but the healer wont get any points for healing because there's no damage to heal when everything is already dead...Where in a terrible party where the things are dying very slowely the tank will take a prolonged beating and thus get an amazing rank. so will the healer...Quote:
Originally Posted by RushRiviera
Implement a personal rating/performance system
Printable View
-
06-04-2021, 03:13 AMDzian
-
06-04-2021, 07:59 PMLariaKirin
Absolutely pointless. We already have a better solution that is much more in-depth than a trivial letter rating.
-
06-04-2021, 09:54 PMStriderShinryu
As I've said elsewhere, I'm all for a system like this. I do feel that the grading should probably be a little tougher than in the OP and I feel an integral aspect of a system like this is to add tangible ways that the player could improve their performance alongside a letter grade. It doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, anything extremely specific but just make it clear why they got the grade they did. If a tank takes a lot of unnecessary damage, remind them to use their cooldowns. If a DPS has a DoT that can be maintained indefinitely, remind them of that, etc. Heck, even for healers you can make a note if they're healing too much and encourage them to DPS more often instead of overhealing.
-
06-05-2021, 03:58 AMValfreyja
Okay, there is nothing really good about this idea at all.
Doesn't matter what you call the lowest rank, it's still lowest.
Right, optional. And if players demand you use it? You get locked out of parties for not.Quote:
Make the system disabled by default and completely optional.
Again, you offer a solution, but you previously already stated what is going to happen. People in PFs are going to demand screenshots for "proven" skills. And if the skills aren't good enough, the player gets kicked.Quote:
Make the system personal only, no way to see any other party members ratings.
No, it adds stress if your rating is low and you start losing out on PF content because of elitist jerks.Quote:
• Makes content more fun to replay.
By helping other players judge you and tell you that you aren't good enough for their group.Quote:
• Encourages improvement.
The incentive is already there. It's called adventurer in need bonuses, tomestone bonuses, stellaclusters, etc.Quote:
This system would give more incentive to players for re-playing old content
You really haven't put as much thought into this as you should have.Quote:
DPS roles can have their criteria based on their total damage output at the end of the duty + the effectiveness of their buffs. Damage output thresholds would be set accordingly for each duty.
Tank roles can have their criteria based mainly on damage taken + damage mitigated, whilst also taking into account their damage output and losing points for total damage taken by other party members.
Healer roles can have their criteria based on both their total healing and their damage output. The key is to find the right balance so as to reward healers for playing their roles both when they are spending most of their time healing a party that is taking lots of damage, and when they are spending more time dealing damage due to the tank effectively holding aggro and using defensive abilities.
Tanks: Their rating is lost because the party taken damage. Does this take into account party members stepping into AoEs and getting hit? You realize this can be a way to torch a tanks ratings by deliberately taking damage, right? So lots of opportunities for grudges.
Healers: Your system for this is again bad. In dungeons, most of the time the tank will pull large groups and sure they hold aggro, but you are backwards in this because when the tank is holding aggro for a large number of enemies, it requires almost constantly healing to keep them alive from taking many hits repeatedly.
DPS: So you want to shame them for either not understanding what rotations to use. Or else force everyone to play exactly the same with the exact same rotations of damage and buffing themselves, or the group. Or else they are seen as weak and undesirable in a group.
Sorry, but this idea, frankly, has no business being in XIV. There is just no way this won't negatively affect the community. -
06-05-2021, 05:57 PMShurrikhanIf the conventional XIV solution is for every party to be blinded and just keep rolling the dice until they get a sufficient ratio of carries to leeches, I think we have bigger problems to worry about than some parties excluding those who are unprepared for the given content.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adeacia
Moreover, there's only one real goalpost for party requirements: enough likely performance to make up for the number of grossly unprepared players likely to slip through the requirements and soon cause the run to disband, wasting everyone's time. At present, this is done through prior clear checks (Oh no! It's so exclusive that players who haven't cleared can be optionally barred from farm runs) and ilvl (which is far less meritocratic, and provides far less climbable barriers to content access, than a more correlative metric like a well-thought, contextualized measure of performance).
The only people who'd be more excluded as a result of switching from tangentials like excessive ilvl requirements to a more meritocratic basis of expectations would be those who (1) can afford to deck out in new crafted gear but (2) lack the skill to put it to use reasonably expectable from that ilvl.
That's not to say that the system suggested here is nearly ideal -- it's not -- but when the status quo is to bloat your ilvl requirements and just keep reforming until you get a party of actually prepared people, for a change... the bar's pretty damn low and more than worth replacing. -
06-06-2021, 05:57 AMGruntler
You have that system, using the only metrics that matter.
If your expert dungeons tend to be longer than 20 minutes in pf, you're lagging behind.
If you regularly see ex dungeons shorter than 15 minutes in pf, you're not.
When an in-game metric exists, you can use it.
With all due respect, that's the job you sign up for with a red icon. While obviously there should be forgiveness for people learning how the game works...Quote:
Originally Posted by Valfreyja
https://i.imgur.com/Yp21NTL.png
...you really can't argue the game isn't telling you what is expected of you.