Idea for playstyle graph.

We are always looking for ways to improve our playstyle. The unbalance between new and old players is a challenge. The idea is too make a playerstyle graph where perhaps the community rates you combined with the elo system. This is one way to better the balance.

The reason why this idea comes up is that often when you play with friend it doesn’t care about you being in a group and split the team up when you play with friends you often have different play styles depending on the map.

Balancing system just more or less ignores a lot of different playing styles. Where you could have a lot of eco players in one game against only aggressive players.

Let say you have two high elo players in a team and one is more aggressive player and the other one have been boosted and just play passive eco style and have the same elo. Should they be in the same team?


The idea is similar to the rating system in Dota 2 after each game it takes all the data from the game and make a hexagon chart depending on how you play. It could be either from the ingame data or a rating system from other players or both.




Just some fun examples of different play styles.
1. Porcy
2. Aggressive
3. Eco
4. Com trolly
5. Apocalypse rusher


Some nice reading about play styles:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134842/personality_and_play_styles_a_.php


This is just some idea where I could learn to play better also get to know what other people think I should try play better.

It would be a nice feature on the player information just to see the information about yourself.

Give me feedback is this just an idiot idea or could it possible work and could it be implemented?


EXTRA:

Make a new achievement:
Mechanic - Highest healing value.

Re: Lobs - Someone has to build 100 storages for the team! ;)

I like the idea of knowing more about my play style using data from games I'm in.

add one category to that list:
not a team-player (aka doing selfish stuff like rushing useless things or wasting metal, suiciding intentionally units one by on despite being told to stop etc)

not sure what this category could be used for, probably just for not putting all with this feature into one group...

This seems a nice idea in principal and I'd certainly be interested in more feedback from the game about the way I played. It'd probably have to be more abstract categories than most proposed though, yet it doesn't want to be so abstract as to have no direct bearing on the game. It definitely doesn't want to be explicitly about what tactics one favours (trollcomms or whatever) because there are a lot of tactics and the player will need to adapt.

Strategically, perhaps one might bias more towards territory control and attrition, or towards discreet and concerted attacks for instance. Others might focus on front lines with economy taking a back seat or vice versa. Perhaps risk taking could be measured. I don't know how that can be mathematically picked out though.

At some past point in time i tried to guess which ZK players were micro or macro oriented based on their ratio of Complete Annihilation awards to Metal Prospector awards. This kind of worked, but it's also not very useful: what do you do with this info?

Plugging it into balance won't really work, because sometimes players of different types will synergise and other times they wont'.

Would definitely be nice to have the data from the end-game graph on the server. This could be used to generate statistics or even create a casual rating. While Elo and WHR are great when you have lots of games because they work for any kind of play style, they can hardly make good predictions in big team games. Systems that incorporate statistics can and will be cheated, but might still lead to an overall better result in casual 16v16 games.

Playstyle graph isn`t the same thing as unit archetypes graph

I think it would be nice to have such statistics if they are presented in a visually nice way that is easy to understand.

But I think you will definitely not get better balance in terms of win chances with it than with WHR unless you apply some real statistical calculations or hardcore artificial intelligence on it. Also, even if such very advanced balancing evolved further than WHR on average, some would exploit the system if winning the game is not the condition for rating anymore. What you could do is make teams' playstyles more equal but I think it's not bad to have some variation there.

This is a cool idea but I'd just like to point out that the "awards" are already a fair indicator of playstyle. Guys that are aggressive and really go hammer and tongs at the front with micro tend to get Complete Annihilation and the Veteran awards. Guys using Commanders a lot get Master and Commander. I am porcy so I get a lot of Turtle Shell and Landscaper awards. Because I spam Caretakers I get a ton of recycling awards too.

Then again, playstyles tend to differ in 1v1 as opposed to team. In team games I try and be the "team backbone" by providing a strongpoint from which to attack from, to repair at and to base artillery at. I try grid up and make sure mexes are linked. I know that in 1v1 the same tactics will get me killed so I deliberately play out of my usual style and try be more aggressive. Maybe thats why I suck at 1v1 LOL.

Still, the more info, the better.

I say go for it :)