New ladder: Team games proposal

Post by **det** » 11 Sep 2007, 23:28

Right now with the team ladder, users select the teams themselves. This leads to stacked teams and squabbling. I propose the following two game modes to solve this.

1) Random teams
A random teams mode will be added to the list of options. When a ladder in this mode is started, Satirik's client will query MeltraX's ladder to generate random teams. It will then assign players to the appropriate ally team and launch the game. Only games generated by the the ladder site will be allowed to be reported.

2) Calculated teams
This will work like the random teams mode, with one exception. Instead of randomly assigning the teams, teams will be decided by ladder rank. Ranks 1,4,6 will face ranks 2,3,5. If you have a more preferable way of generating calculated teams, please give your idea in this thread.

edit: Side note about squad play:
I strongly beleive that squad play should be a separate category. It should only rank squads and not the players themselves. PRO_rANDY, PRO_flopflop, PRO_BasiC vs [WarC]DayWalkeR, [WarC]NOiZE, [WarC]Sleksa would just be PRO vs WarC.

flop · Post by **flop** » 11 Sep 2007, 23:31

no thx i like playing with my clan

Silencer · Post by **Silencer** » 11 Sep 2007, 23:34

Squad ladder is a good idea, though it might be more difficult to find games. I guess random teams would be better for people without clans, friends etc. But i won't be playing team games if thats the case.. Why play with james116 when i can play squad games with my clan?

flop · Post by **flop** » 11 Sep 2007, 23:35

no thx even with your edit there are already enough ladders
maybe if spring ladder got really really popular we could make random and a squad/clan separate but atm it would just be rediculous

PRO_rANDY · Post by **PRO_rANDY** » 11 Sep 2007, 23:36

Every team game I've played have been with people im living with whilst playing in the same room or with silencer, my irl friend. I like playing with them and we can shout orders at each other and see each others screen so i can tell them what to do, then after a game we discuss it and say what we can do better. None of this would be possible if the teams were random.

Also I would like to play with clan mates vs other clans.

Edit: if none of my prefered allies or clan mates are on/wanting to play I just play 1v1s, if I wanted to play a random mess with no thought out strategy before hand and little to no communication during game I would join one of the many 5v5 altored games avaliable

flop · Post by **flop** » 11 Sep 2007, 23:37

andy wont even play with me unless i mic with him Q_Q

PRO_rANDY · Post by **PRO_rANDY** » 11 Sep 2007, 23:40

ill probably play some clan games with u soon flopflop but atm im enjoying playing with my housemates + sil

Post by **det** » 11 Sep 2007, 23:41

I don't think it is a bad idea to have several separate ladders. I would like there to be 1v1 ladder, Random/Calculated teams ladder (Same ladder, 2 methods of making teams), Squad ladder, and User picked teams ladder. So, you would still be free to play with whom you wanted, but it would be ranked on a different and probably (for good reason) less competitive ladder. Also, if you only like certain ladders, that is all you would have to participate in. This is a way of drawing the big random team playing Spring population into the ladder system and trying to make Spring more competitive as a whole.

PRO_rANDY · Post by **PRO_rANDY** » 11 Sep 2007, 23:54

how can team games be competitive if you cant practice and plan with your allies before hand?

Post by **det** » 11 Sep 2007, 23:59

Squad ladder is about that. Random teams ladder is about being thrown on a planet with a bunch of random people and trying to conquer your enemy. This the the style of game the majority of Spring plays and has the possibility of bringing a lot more blood into the ladder system.

Tim-the-maniac · Post by **Tim-the-maniac** » 12 Sep 2007, 00:09

I dout the majority of spring players are competative enough to want to play on the ladder...

LordMatt · Post by **LordMatt** » 12 Sep 2007, 01:26

PRO_rANDY wrote:Edit: if none of my prefered allies or clan mates are on/wanting to play I just play 1v1s, if I wanted to play a random mess with no thought out strategy before hand and little to no communication during game I would join one of the many 5v5 altored games avaliable

+1 I don't like playing competitive team games without players I know very well.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 12 Sep 2007, 02:52

Tim-the-maniac wrote:I dout the majority of spring players are competative enough to want to play on the ladder...

If it is a team ladder, I'm willing to fill in for missing people. I like playing, plain and simple - competition is just for the hell of making it difficult.

Saktoth · Post by **Saktoth** » 12 Sep 2007, 12:39

E-peen!

This is why so few people play competitive or ladder games. Most people play spring as a game, not as a sport. Honestly, this little pond isnt big enough to take it seriously as a sport.

flop · Post by **flop** » 12 Sep 2007, 21:53

no saktoth, its just that most people in spring suck. they are afraid to play competitively, so they hide in altored games where they can blame other people when they can lose

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 12 Sep 2007, 22:32

I'll have to side with Saktoth here, Floppy.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 12 Sep 2007, 22:39

Saktoth wrote:E-peen!

This is why so few people play competitive or ladder games. Most people play spring as a game, not as a sport. Honestly, this little pond isnt big enough to take it seriously as a sport.

Very true.

*Flop put it away before you hurt yourself* Kidding btw

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 13 Sep 2007, 00:37

Saktoth wrote:E-peen!

This is why so few people play competitive or ladder games. Most people play spring as a game, not as a sport. Honestly, this little pond isnt big enough to take it seriously as a sport.

I think it's that most people don't find competition as fun as just kinda playing. It ruins the experience for some people when their losses put a permanent mark on their score.

Torrasque · Post by **Torrasque** » 13 Sep 2007, 13:37

I think spring-lobby shouldn't mark the number of win/losses.
I'm sure that without it it would increase the number of people playing.. and decrease the frustration of loosing.

The ELO system is here to rank people, I really don't see why the number of win/loss is needed to be displayed.

Is there any 3422 win / 942 losses after Kasparov chart ? :)

edit: sorry I was speaking about ladder ... ladder has always been in any sport about a "rank" and never about counting the "win/losses" thingy.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 13 Sep 2007, 13:48

Torrasque wrote:I think spring-lobby shouldn't mark the number of win/losses.
I'm sure that without it it would increase the number of people playing.. and decrease the frustration of loosing.

The ELO system is here to rank people, I really don't see why the number of win/loss is needed to be displayed.

Is there any 3422 win / 942 losses after Kasparov chart ? :)

It doesn't mark win losses, and it won't any time soon.

You have to play ladder games in order to have W/L recorded, and playing ladder games is a choice.

Spring RTS Engine

New ladder: Team games proposal

Do you support this proposal?

New ladder: Team games proposal