Very yes.neddiedrow wrote:I don't think the lobby should contain any game bias.
suggestion - more ranks
Moderator: Moderators
+1neddiedrow wrote:I don't think the lobby should contain any game bias.
Would be a little weird for a Gundam player to get TA based units as rank symbols imho...
Hmm... I think the current lobby protocol only supports 8 ranks... and we're using 5 now...neddiedrow wrote:250 Hours (150 Gain)
500 Hours (250 Gain)
800 Hours (300 Gain)
1500 Hours (700 Gain)
And I think the last rank is a bit to high... 1300 Hours (500 Gain) would be enough... that's the same amount as the first 7

Yeah, I liked the idea presented in another thread of:KDR_11k wrote:If feasible per-Mod and per-Faction ranks may be useful. Would need a way to make different versions of a mod carry experience over, though.
name=Balanced Annihilation;
shortname=BA;
version=5.4;
That could control version changes...
From the Mod Icon thread:
http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=10956
And yeah, per-Game and per-Faction ranks would be awesome

As someone with 7 star accounts, I can say with certainty that more ranks would indeed cut down on smurfing.
At least until some of us maxed out with our main accounts with 1,000 hours or whatever, which a few of us have already done. 0o
Now for the definitive problem with ranks based upon win/loss ratios - team games. Some of us play competitively with 1v1s. Most of us do not. Those who've been around for awhile each know who the others are (1v1s are boring).
Now, presuming that a team game isn't tremendously lopsided (as many, but not most, are), then even strong players shouldn't have much better than a 50/50 win/loss rate, as two somewhat strong players can balance out a very strong player and a teamkilling fucktard.
Anyway, more colored stars (or preferably Hello Kitty avatars) would definitely be welcome, as they would make me feel like I'm better than everyone else because I'm old and consequently have a lot of spare time on my hands. Go PM Betalord about it.
At least until some of us maxed out with our main accounts with 1,000 hours or whatever, which a few of us have already done. 0o
Now for the definitive problem with ranks based upon win/loss ratios - team games. Some of us play competitively with 1v1s. Most of us do not. Those who've been around for awhile each know who the others are (1v1s are boring).
Now, presuming that a team game isn't tremendously lopsided (as many, but not most, are), then even strong players shouldn't have much better than a 50/50 win/loss rate, as two somewhat strong players can balance out a very strong player and a teamkilling fucktard.
Anyway, more colored stars (or preferably Hello Kitty avatars) would definitely be welcome, as they would make me feel like I'm better than everyone else because I'm old and consequently have a lot of spare time on my hands. Go PM Betalord about it.
I think time-based ranks suck.
I propose a peer feedback system, where everyone can rate everyone else as:
a lot better than me
better than me
about equal
worse than me
a lot worse than me
Of course some people would rank everyone as a lot worse than me even if they suck themselves, but you could just look at the peer reviews from users that have good reputation. Oh and I propose a reputation system too :) So outside of skill, I'd let everyone rank everyone else as a:
very nice guy
nice guy
neutral
somewhat annoying
total idiot
And I'd rather play with nice guys than total idiots, not depending on their skill of play.
I propose a peer feedback system, where everyone can rate everyone else as:
a lot better than me
better than me
about equal
worse than me
a lot worse than me
Of course some people would rank everyone as a lot worse than me even if they suck themselves, but you could just look at the peer reviews from users that have good reputation. Oh and I propose a reputation system too :) So outside of skill, I'd let everyone rank everyone else as a:
very nice guy
nice guy
neutral
somewhat annoying
total idiot
And I'd rather play with nice guys than total idiots, not depending on their skill of play.
-
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
What are the chances of getting a supcom style 1v1 ranked ladder, based on ELO score as a result of the yes/no outcome of two players fighting?
I think that would bring some of the buzz back into supcom online play, as well as encourage people to play hard and fast 1v1 games instead of the usual 2v2's on massive porc maps.
Nothing like inflating egos for getting people to play
I think that would bring some of the buzz back into supcom online play, as well as encourage people to play hard and fast 1v1 games instead of the usual 2v2's on massive porc maps.
Nothing like inflating egos for getting people to play

-
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
I think elitism will occur either way; it certainly exists already. A ranked ladder (It doesn't bother me if it is mod-specific, so long as any mod can have it's own individual ladder) has the potential to encourage further play; specifically, 1v1 play.
ELO provides a pretty good guide to skill rating vs other players, so long as everyone plays on the ladder enough. It's not perfect, but it is significantly better then nothing.
ELO provides a pretty good guide to skill rating vs other players, so long as everyone plays on the ladder enough. It's not perfect, but it is significantly better then nothing.