Holy testicle tuesdays! I have 1000 hours? that is Saaaad,
I guess thats what 3 months of unemployment and a foreighn gf do for ya ^^
Luckily I live in Vancouver now so I spend all my spare time job hunting snowboarding and going to the bar with m'lady hehe, yay for Canada and having stuff to do! also its my birthday today!
ok... after three, Everybody!.... 1...2...3... Happy birthday to steve.... tra la la la laaa laaaa.....
mmm beer and french toast for breakfast! hehe
Anyway to my point...
Id add one more rank for 300 hours personally, and maybe one more for 500. Id also add an auto lifetime ban for anyone that hits 1000 hours because that is just not healthy ^^
suggestion - more ranks
Moderator: Moderators
-
BlackLiger
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 21:58
No no no, just a rank resetBigSteve wrote:Holy testicle tuesdays! I have 1000 hours? that is Saaaad,
I guess thats what 3 months of unemployment and a foreighn gf do for ya ^^
Luckily I live in Vancouver now so I spend all my spare time job hunting snowboarding and going to the bar with m'lady hehe, yay for Canada and having stuff to do! also its my birthday today!
ok... after three, Everybody!.... 1...2...3... Happy birthday to steve.... tra la la la laaa laaaa.....
mmm beer and french toast for breakfast! hehe
Anyway to my point...
Id add one more rank for 300 hours personally, and maybe one more for 500. Id also add an auto lifetime ban for anyone that hits 1000 hours because that is just not healthy ^^
In fact the problem is that usually we want to play balanced games. So it would be perfect that the server would make an automatic balancing (when requested to do so) based on the time each player spent with that specific mod and faction without showing effectivly the rank. (this is from "nice ideas that will not be implement because of lack of time")Sheekel wrote: Also, NO new ranks. Its just another catalyst to encourage cheating. The current ranking system is fine.
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
It's one of the best indicators we can have.neddiedrow wrote:Time doesn't indicate ability in even that case. I'm roughly as solid with URC in E&E as I am with ARM in AA, and I've spent maybe ten times as many hours as the latter.
Even if you are as solid with URC, this may be because the mod is easy, or because there are no players that played AA that much. From a balancing point of view the time will do. If you have any idea I think everybody would be happy to hear it
Day said it better than I could, really. Time is no indicator of anything besides dedication, and I don't think we really need a skill based rating system. Get to know the people that you play with, that is my method, and it is the theory behind the academic clan structure besides - and look at how well that works!
This is again, a 'negative' comment (no new idea, just saying an idea doesn't work in all the cases - which should be know by everyone by now). And what if they are ? If 95% of 1 stripe players are bad, and 50% of star players are bad, you can still balance a game by taking into account mod play time, rather than by making a 'random' choice.Day wrote:you have no idea how many sucky star players are out there have you
And you really can't deny that if I am playing a mod for the first time I will be bad at it. So time is a factor. When you play other mod than AA, you usually have no idea of the skills of the players. And I have to announce 'I'm total noob, don't balance based on my rank' (thinking primarily at EE as I do not play many others)
For XTA I think this is not that of a problem, because there are either people who play it from long time or total noobs (which are switching to AA as it is easy to find an open game and bad players to beat
)
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
I dont like this idea. If anything I think it would be abused - Players would only play if they felt the game was stacked to their advantage - people would all want to host their own games and not join other peoples because they are in control of the teams in that case and can stack them as they please.I agree, a rank that shows how much a person wins would be nice to judge abilities.
Even if this didnt happen, many people would probably have ludicrous win % and actually still be pretty rubbish, due to selectively playing only noobstars repeatedly, and refusing to play with people that can beat them because they dont want to "hurt their rank"
In short, people would turn into stat whores, and thats not a good thing, we've probably all seen what it does to other games, they are everywhere, they always bitch and whine and only care about their stats instead of actually enjoying playing the game without a care if they lose to a better player.
But...+1 for more ranks, it can't hurt right? I've wanted my own personal little icon thing in spring for a while and have thought about harassing betalord about it for a while, but higher ranks could also do the trick.
(always wished i had one of those moderator spanners, or at least my own icon even if it represented nothing)
[EXTRA STUFF]
Anyway the point is, unless theres a pretty detailed ranking system build into spring that tracks every game you play and updates your statistics accordingly, then puts them into a ladder system, then we'll never have a full-proof way of telling who is good and who isn't, except what neddie says - learn who the people are.
The vast majority of players i play with these days i know how they play and how good/crap they are from several/many previous games with them. The people i dont recognise are either clearly distinguishable as smurfs (in which case its not too hard to find out who) or are randoms that are new to spring or havnt played in a long, long time - in which case they're crap.
