| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jim Steele
   |
Posted - 2004.09.06 15:31:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jim Steele on 06/09/2004 15:36:01
Edited by: Jim Steele on 06/09/2004 15:35:32
The Caldari championship quals seem to be umbalanced in my opinon so far as the qualifiers are made up of similar corperation standing people.
Surely one would expect the high corp rating people to be seeded and then the groups drawn randomly from there or is this an attempt of 'balanceing' the groups so that people who started at about the same time are drawn together as appears to be the case (i am drawn with my corpmate who started one week after me)
This is confermed by checking the qualifying groups here and the summary pages here.
High standing doesnt mean someone has played longer but as a general rule of thumb, standing is proportional to time played which is proportional to skillpoints!!
This also begs the question could'nt i swop with someone the bottom group to ensure i get drawn with people with lower corp standing and thus proportionaly less skillpoints? Far for me to critizise CCP im sure they know what there doing i just thought a random draw would have been more appropriate to avoid such issues.
Death to the Galante |
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2004.09.06 15:31:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Jim Steele on 06/09/2004 15:36:01
Edited by: Jim Steele on 06/09/2004 15:35:32
The Caldari championship quals seem to be umbalanced in my opinon so far as the qualifiers are made up of similar corperation standing people.
Surely one would expect the high corp rating people to be seeded and then the groups drawn randomly from there or is this an attempt of 'balanceing' the groups so that people who started at about the same time are drawn together as appears to be the case (i am drawn with my corpmate who started one week after me)
This is confermed by checking the qualifying groups here and the summary pages here.
High standing doesnt mean someone has played longer but as a general rule of thumb, standing is proportional to time played which is proportional to skillpoints!!
This also begs the question could'nt i swop with someone the bottom group to ensure i get drawn with people with lower corp standing and thus proportionaly less skillpoints? Far for me to critizise CCP im sure they know what there doing i just thought a random draw would have been more appropriate to avoid such issues.
Death to the Galante |
Shenrogar
|
Posted - 2004.09.06 17:56:00 -
[3]
right..... how is it unbalanced? skillpoints have NOTHING to do with standings, doing missions has to do with standings
|
Shenrogar
|
Posted - 2004.09.06 17:56:00 -
[4]
right..... how is it unbalanced? skillpoints have NOTHING to do with standings, doing missions has to do with standings
|
Gnauton
|
Posted - 2004.09.06 18:16:00 -
[5]
Due to EVE's being a single-shard consistent game world with players from every single one of the globe's time zones, our only real option when creating the schedule was to place players into the qualifiers with time zone as our sole criterion. It's well possible that there's some correlation between a player's time zone and the amount of time he or she's spent playing the game -- those in and around GMT and in the States were the first to get their hands on it after release, after which it's been spreading slowly eastward to Asia and Australia -- but it merits saying here and now that no conscious effort was made on the organizers' part to group people of similar standings together. The deciding criterion was time zone.
Hope that clears things up some. |
Gnauton
|
Posted - 2004.09.06 18:16:00 -
[6]
Due to EVE's being a single-shard consistent game world with players from every single one of the globe's time zones, our only real option when creating the schedule was to place players into the qualifiers with time zone as our sole criterion. It's well possible that there's some correlation between a player's time zone and the amount of time he or she's spent playing the game -- those in and around GMT and in the States were the first to get their hands on it after release, after which it's been spreading slowly eastward to Asia and Australia -- but it merits saying here and now that no conscious effort was made on the organizers' part to group people of similar standings together. The deciding criterion was time zone.
Hope that clears things up some. |
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2004.09.07 09:05:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: Shenrogar
right..... how is it unbalanced? skillpoints have NOTHING to do with standings, doing missions has to do with standings
Missions take time and thus higher standings = more missions = longer play time = greater skillpoints
Death to the Galante |
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2004.09.07 09:05:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Shenrogar
right..... how is it unbalanced? skillpoints have NOTHING to do with standings, doing missions has to do with standings
Missions take time and thus higher standings = more missions = longer play time = greater skillpoints
Death to the Galante |
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2004.09.07 09:07:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Gnauton
Due to EVE's being a single-shard consistent game world with players from every single one of the globe's time zones, our only real option when creating the schedule was to place players into the qualifiers with time zone as our sole criterion. It's well possible that there's some correlation between a player's time zone and the amount of time he or she's spent playing the game -- those in and around GMT and in the States were the first to get their hands on it after release, after which it's been spreading slowly eastward to Asia and Australia -- but it merits saying here and now that no conscious effort was made on the organizers' part to group people of similar standings together. The deciding criterion was time zone.
Hope that clears things up some.
ok thanks for that, im sure with the swapping of timeslots things will even out and i think the setup is more likely to effect the overall finishing time then skillpoints 
Death to the Galante |
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2004.09.07 09:07:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Gnauton
Due to EVE's being a single-shard consistent game world with players from every single one of the globe's time zones, our only real option when creating the schedule was to place players into the qualifiers with time zone as our sole criterion. It's well possible that there's some correlation between a player's time zone and the amount of time he or she's spent playing the game -- those in and around GMT and in the States were the first to get their hands on it after release, after which it's been spreading slowly eastward to Asia and Australia -- but it merits saying here and now that no conscious effort was made on the organizers' part to group people of similar standings together. The deciding criterion was time zone.
Hope that clears things up some.
ok thanks for that, im sure with the swapping of timeslots things will even out and i think the setup is more likely to effect the overall finishing time then skillpoints
Death to the Galante |
|
|
Rufus Kex
|
Posted - 2004.09.07 12:24:00 -
[11]
Seems to me that the qualifiers were chosen firstly out of the standing to the corporation they chose to run for, and secondly to the standing to Caldari state.
I'm running for Ishukone, but I have 0.0 standing to them, although I got like 5+ to Caldari. So, if my theory is correct, you'd only need like 0.01 standing to Ishukone (ie, 2 or 3 missions for them) to have become accepted as a racer before me. Not that unbalanced if you ask me, I'd rather say that I myself am lucky, as is probably a bunch of other people that applied to a corporation that they never worked for.
.. It's not confirmed that it works this way though, but the information page on the event suggests so (all standings shown next to the contestants)... And also a lot of veteran players being turned down in favor of "newer" people with good standings. Please correct me if I'm wrong 
|
Rufus Kex
|
Posted - 2004.09.07 12:24:00 -
[12]
Seems to me that the qualifiers were chosen firstly out of the standing to the corporation they chose to run for, and secondly to the standing to Caldari state.
I'm running for Ishukone, but I have 0.0 standing to them, although I got like 5+ to Caldari. So, if my theory is correct, you'd only need like 0.01 standing to Ishukone (ie, 2 or 3 missions for them) to have become accepted as a racer before me. Not that unbalanced if you ask me, I'd rather say that I myself am lucky, as is probably a bunch of other people that applied to a corporation that they never worked for.
.. It's not confirmed that it works this way though, but the information page on the event suggests so (all standings shown next to the contestants)... And also a lot of veteran players being turned down in favor of "newer" people with good standings. Please correct me if I'm wrong
|
Deovina
|
Posted - 2004.09.07 23:10:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Jim Steele
Originally by: Shenrogar
right..... how is it unbalanced? skillpoints have NOTHING to do with standings, doing missions has to do with standings
Missions take time and thus higher standings = more missions = longer play time = greater skillpoints
sorry but that is just plain wrong. I have 9.91 standing to Lai Dai. And I've been playing for 4 months. My standing could be easily be as high as 10 since a also have a Ishukone standing of 8.70. Plus I've been in deep space for quite a while...
|
Deovina
|
Posted - 2004.09.07 23:10:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Jim Steele
Originally by: Shenrogar
right..... how is it unbalanced? skillpoints have NOTHING to do with standings, doing missions has to do with standings
Missions take time and thus higher standings = more missions = longer play time = greater skillpoints
sorry but that is just plain wrong. I have 9.91 standing to Lai Dai. And I've been playing for 4 months. My standing could be easily be as high as 10 since a also have a Ishukone standing of 8.70. Plus I've been in deep space for quite a while...
|
Doc Brown
|
Posted - 2004.09.08 00:19:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Doc Brown on 08/09/2004 00:21:00
never mind.....
_________________________________________________
There are no bad ideas, only bad implementations. |
Doc Brown
|
Posted - 2004.09.08 00:19:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Doc Brown on 08/09/2004 00:21:00
never mind.....
_________________________________________________
There are no bad ideas, only bad implementations. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |