suggestion - more ranks

[Ishach]

da highest rank is a [SmuG] tag

[Neddie]

The win/lose ratio is a poor idea, as I have said before.

[hunterw]

The win/lose ratio is a poor idea, as I have said before.

I agree, but would go a step further and say it's a terrible idea.

[Boirunner]

The win/lose ratio is a poor idea, as I have said before.

I agree, but would go a step further and say it's a terrible idea.

I would even say it is a mind-crunchingly horrible idea. Just imagine all the rage, the disconnects, the hiding one sub in hope the other guy will get annoyed and give up, the abusing of every bug to excess, the super-risky all-out commrush followed by disconnect if it didn't work, the my-allies-sucked drama, and I could go on and on.

edit: I'm not even sure more time-based ranks would help. After 100 hours, you hopefully understand the game. The rest is skill, practice and effort and those things cannot be measured by time in game.

[PicassoCT]

How about reducing the In-Game Time for Spamming Main

[FLOZi]

Some of us have legitimate reasons for #main spam

Code: Select all

[12:06:22] * [S44]FLOZi says: Try out Spring:1944! Springs very own wwii mod! http://spring.unknown-files.net/file/2246/1944_Public_Alpha_version_v0.01b3h/ Give us feedback in #aata!

[Radja]

i like the ELO style points (chess' way to rate)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system

its not a win / loss ratio, you gain or lose score depending on your enemies's score and the outcome, with this, you can lose aganist stronger enemies without hurting your rating. this keeps "pr0s" from beating weaklings to boost his rate because they can win very little but lose very much


the only problems i find:

its not prepared for team play: this should not be too complicated to adapt, but judging who's more useful in a team is probably impossible. this problem appears in w/l ratios too

your rating can go down: people dont like to see their rating going down for fighting newbies who were ota experts, though this can be avoided by freezing elo scores of newbs for the first 10-20 matches (newbs elo changes, their enemies' dont).... ok, this happens in w/l too


unlike chess or go, spring has mods and each mod's faction plays different, even worse, each update can hurt your ability that is now being rated. elo per revision is too much, but should we have elo per mod, per faction, or an overall elo? (i preffer per faction, per mod is ok too)

we need to find a way to make it rage-quit-proof
--------------------

things that would be good with this system working:


a statics page showing your rating in each mod (or faction), # hours/times played, clans, tournaments, etc

accounts you can rename: so you can keep you elo and change your name (to add a tag or just to get a different name). if this cannot be done, then someway to transfer your info from one account to the other

turn "sort by rank" into "sort by (this mod's / faction's) elo"

show overall rating (per team?) in open games, so you can sort games by its players rating too

no rating games: though this would encourage not using the rating at all, its good to have some way of training / playing without hurting your rating on purpose

what do you think? its not as mathematicly complicated as it looks, and it has to be simplified / adapted anyway

[hunterw]

After 100 hours, you hopefully understand the game. The rest is skill, practice and effort and those things cannot be measured by time in game.

[Boirunner]

After 100 hours, you hopefully understand the game. The rest is skill, practice and effort and those things cannot be measured by time in game.

Well, it's very safe to say that a player that has 10 hours ingame will be better at the game than a player with 1 hour. And it's reasonably safe to say that a player with 100 ingame hours will be better than a player with 30. But I don't think its necessarily true that a player with 300 hours is better than one with 150.

After you really know and understand the game with all its facettes, it's mostly about how good you really are.

[AF]

Imagine the rank a player had was represented by a 'score', and this score was equivilant to a currency. Why start a brand new account and abandon your old rich account and associated assets?

[Guessmyname]

And you had to buy Speedmetal with this currency...

[AF]

I personlly intend to make any benefits of playing speedmetal negligible with regards to rank as speedmetal isnt indicative of the players skill and it can be justified that it actually reduces a players skill.

[Ishach]

ELO rankings :/


In supcom beta i'd get 2 ponts for a win and lose 30 or so every loss

that wasnt bad it was soul crushing

[Deathblane]

lol 15 odd games progress wiped out in 1. Therer must hve been loads of people on -ve scores.

[Relative]

I don't see how the ELO system could work. That system is not specifically designed to work with team games (which could account for 90%+ of all games), and would be difficult to implement and enforce. I suggest keeping with the current system, but expanding based on hunterw's suggestion at the beginning of this topic.

To refresh:

i'd like to see a rank 6, and possibly rank 7.

rank 6 could be 300 hours, rank 7 @ 1000 or something like that. i'd just like to be able to discern between the usual rank 5 players and the uberleets. higher ranks also have the possibly of keeping vets around to play more often. it's a win/win.

First off, I hate how many of you are suggesting that a person's skill level remains static once they get past the initial learning curve. Have you never improved in anything over time? Practise raises a person's level, such as throughout school you study to improve your writing and language skills, or how the contributions to this project with the level of coding, design, concept etc.. improve as people gain more experience in their area.

Right now I clock just over 300 hours, which would be enough for rank 6 of hurterw's rankings. If I were to play my 100 hour self it would be a crushing defeat for my past self, and a rather boring victory for me. Sure I knew my way around the game back then, but that is far from having any actual "skill". Yet, I know I could improve my game a lot (I'm not that good) if I adopt new strategies, play a higher level of player, and play less Green Fields and Small Supreme. Thus, currently, I think time is the best measure available. I propose this ranking system based on the current and hunterw:

Rank 1. >5 hr*
Rank 2. 5-15 hr*
Rank 3. 15-30 hr *
Rank 4. 30-100 hr*
Rank 5. 100-300 hr*
Rank 6. 300-500 hr
Rank 7. 500>

*Already in place

Sure this system may not be perfect, but it's already in place. This is simply an expansion of a system that already works.

[grumpy_Bastard]

Im a prime example of why ranks really dont mean crap. Anyone thats played against me, knows that I play like a noob. Ive had TA since it came out in 1997, been playing spring since april 2006, yet I still cant remember what half the units do. Perhaps its because I watch simpsons, or perhaps a short attention span, either way, high ranks in my case just show how many hours have been spent playing SimBase.

My suggestion, would be some kind of voting system, done by the server or by players. Keeping track of how many times each player has lost or won games, on different maps. Though, even that wont tell anyone much.

[LordMatt]

You're never going to have a perfect ranking system, but adding a few ranks would separate out some of the noobstars from the good players.

[Cabbage]

TBH you need 1000+ hours aswell (Rank

Although it could just be embaressing

[Ishach]

First off, I hate how many of you are suggesting that a person's skill level remains static once they get past the initial learning curve. Have you never improved in anything over time? Practise raises a person's level, such as throughout school you study to improve your writing and language skills, or how the contributions to this project with the level of coding, design, concept etc.. improve as people gain more experience in their area.

Once you finish the learning curve that is learning all the units and buidlings ect you have to be able to teach yourself how to learn even further.

Ive seen a fair share of players who didnt even have a star yet but were better than the average player base just because they pushed themselves to learn everything.

it can be divided into portions of game play skill past simple knowledge of game mechanics:

Micro
Understanding Behaviors
Attitude
Judging opponents
ect


Knowing when your opponent has lost his cool, or has eased his ground assaults enough for you to suspect he teching or knowing when your opponent has one mex left or if your opponent has a whole base hidden somewhere or knowing how to control a pack of rockos so they all do optimal damage.


Learning game mechanics is mandatory but all those extra factors are things you really have to want to learn and pick up on.

[Ishach]

lol 15 odd games progress wiped out in 1. Therer must hve been loads of people on -ve scores.

it was just cause the ladder was a bit top heavy for points. The top 5 players were all like 300 points ahead of the next 5 players, so pretty much any loss for a top 5 player would count as them losing to a vastly less skilled person so they lose a ton of points.