Registered User
Nbr post: 19
Register: 7/16/03
|
|
Posted: 11/14/14, 4:42 PM
|
|
|
New ranking templates consists of 3 formulas. The key is "simplicity", and if a newbie wonders how the score is built up, it is easy to explain. To explain what achievments give how many points per hour invested is futile. Achievment points are also extremely useless for anything relevant to day-to-day missions/grinding/raiding.
To keep in line with previous years of ranking, it is highly influenced by what classes previously used for ranking. Even though I myself never put extreme importance in mana, which reflected on my gear/ranking, my suggestion sticks to promoting mana because it is what people are used to.
Some classes that may prefer to compare HP as a the only number, still get a weighted number so "everyone has a weighted number". The weighting should be so simple that eyeballing stats and doing an estimate in your head will give you an aproximation. That way you can judge for yourself how much change certain changes will do to your ranking value.
Even though nobody cares about ranking around Endurance, it is still included for consistency (so everyone gets a weighted value) and possibly it can spot extremely unbalanced stats for a character. Same reasoning applies to Mana, and even if Enchanters has way more use HP over mana, we keep it simple and give everyone a weighted value.
The templates are easy enough to understand and selecting a class to be ranked, gives you them "highest to lowest" according to default template for that class.
Selecting a rank according to one of these templates give you all included within that template, unless other selection specified.
1) "Tank Ranking" template number 1 builds on the fact that in the old days x10 was what Tanks often used when discussing AC vs HP aug. It is also easy to multiply with 10 in your head. That AC (already a composite value of mitigation/avoidance) at various levels have another ratio to HP is ignored to keep it simple.
Formula: (HP + (AC x 10)) / 2
Classes: WAR, PAL, SHD
2) "Utility ranking" - Highest of Endurance or Mana is used. We avoid calling it "Hybrid ranking" since Hybrid already a definition for certain classes.
Formula: (HP + HP + (Endurance || Mana)) / 3
Classes: BRD, BST, BER, ENC, MNK, NEC, RNG, ROG, SHM
3) "Mana ranking" - Highest of endurance or mana, but no melee would ever use it so we call it "Mana ranking" as "Power ranking" is unclear.
Formula: (HP + Mana + Mana) /3
Classes: CLR, DRU, MAG, WIZ
The classes included into "Mana ranking" are those who previously was based purely on mana. If I missed or included someone that wasn't ranked according to mana earlier, that should be changed.
You should never have to do more than one simple click to get the relevant ranking. No drop-down menus, no navigating to various boxes and fill in some value.
If ask someone to go check ranking at Magelo.com they should NOT have to search around and learn how to get it. It should be glaringly obvious, intuitive and default.
I would prefer a "(HP + Mana) / 2" for mana intense casters, but above suggestion will keep it closer to the last years "mana-focused" ranking introduced by SoE EQplayers. Thus this ranking value is closer to what many come to expect they rank at.
Sticking to "achievment" which includes a lot of points basically for paying dollars to Sony (like ornaments, where SoE try to sweeten the deal by giving player an achievment in the extension bought) will be the death of "magelo-ranking" as an expression of an easy comparison score.
|
|
|
|
