Rank

[CarRepairer]

On a serious note what u are asking for Scratch is nearly impossible, I mean how do you rate someones micro? Players opinions? Can't see any other way which will result in the most liked players -> highest ranked.

I suppose you could cross reference their battle wins/losses with their APMs. Battles won with high APM means good micro. Battles won with low APM means good macro. Lost battles mean bad micro and macro. Having good or bad teammates ruins everything I just said though.

I like macro. I hate micro.

[Sleksa]

On a serious note what u are asking for Scratch is nearly impossible, I mean how do you rate someones micro? Players opinions? Can't see any other way which will result in the most liked players -> highest ranked.

I suppose you could cross reference their battle wins/losses with their APMs. Battles won with high APM means good micro. Battles won with low APM means good macro. Lost battles mean bad micro and macro. Having good or bad teammates ruins everything I just said though.

I like macro. I hate micro.

no

[Abokasee]

On a serious note what u are asking for Scratch is nearly impossible, I mean how do you rate someones micro? Players opinions? Can't see any other way which will result in the most liked players -> highest ranked.

I suppose you could cross reference their battle wins/losses with their APMs. Battles won with high APM means good micro. Battles won with low APM means good macro. Lost battles mean bad micro and macro. Having good or bad teammates ruins everything I just said though.

I like macro. I hate micro.

no

How does that work, is this a sort of no of disbelieve (like in a film when some one dies) or something else

Back on topic

There should be 3 different rank things

1: Time played, shown using a beard growing
2: Lose/Win ratio, nuff said (possibly seperate one per mod)
3: Number of units built (Maybe a you can see what they build and how much of it in a list)

those are my ideas

[Pxtl]

After reading numerous terrible ideas about how to rate competency, I've come to see why they just settled on "hours played".

An official ladder is really the only other option.

[Hellspawn]

I think combo of current (improved) rank system and ladder system is best. Have 2 icons, one tells you how much you play and other one tells how good are you on ladder (maybe have 3rd one for team ladder).

edit: Also rank based on popularity (meaning other players give opinion how good you are) doesn't work well. I played some game where such ranking was introduced and it backfired horribly.

[Nemo]

Helly isn't kidding - that game (wulfram) is what both of us played for the most part before spring. The creator decided to implement "kudos" where you could give points to people when they did something you thought was worthwhile, or "ding" and remove a bit of their points when they did something bad.

Holy crap what a bloody mess that was (and is). Although its less of a mess now, since about 2/3rds of the playerbase just left after a few months of that nonsense.

Anything that depends on users ranking each other in any way=fail fail fail.

However, ONE solution might be to have a stats page for logged in players with such things as win/loss ratio, average APM, damage dealt/damage recieved, and whatever other stats you want...but not display it in the lobby. Keep the lobby icon just by hours played. Then for those who really cared, they could go to that stats page and try to improve their stats/ranking on the page. I imagine you could also opt out of being listed on the page if you wanted.

That way you keep the players who are motivated by achieving better rankings and stats and being "THE BEST" because they always have something to work towards (improving stats/ranking on that page) whereas the people who don't care don't have to be immediately identified in the lobby as somehow 'worse' and don't even have to bother with the stats page if they don't want to.

[Neddie]

However, ONE solution might be to have a stats page for logged in players with such things as win/loss ratio, average APM, damage dealt/damage recieved, and whatever other stats you want...but not display it in the lobby. Keep the lobby icon just by hours played. Then for those who really cared, they could go to that stats page and try to improve their stats/ranking on the page. I imagine you could also opt out of being listed on the page if you wanted.

That way you keep the players who are motivated by achieving better rankings and stats and being "THE BEST" because they always have something to work towards (improving stats/ranking on that page) whereas the people who don't care don't have to be immediately identified in the lobby as somehow 'worse' and don't even have to bother with the stats page if they don't want to.

I think with some further development, this could be the answer to any call for additional ranks. It will, I suppose, please few people on either extreme, but frankly we have the Ladder to cater to the extremely competitive and the extremely non-competitive can simply not join #Main.

[Scratch]

The ladder isn't nearly enough. How many players at any given time in #main even know about it? It is an informal system external from spring. A well thought out ranking system would make Spring SO much better.

I'm not here to try offer a specific solution. Nemo's post outlines what I am trying to get at. The system needs to be tied right into the lobby. The most important thing about whatever rank system gets used it balance. However there are a thousand ways of doing this. My objective is to provoke people into coming up with something that works AT THIS TIME, so it can be implemented in the next release.

I consider an expanded hour based system to be the product of lazy devs.

Also, I've a hard time believing the exploitation argument.

, a good system should be doable. I heard one guy post already about Halo 3. What kind of ranking system do they have there? could we hope to emulate it.

A few possiblities just coming to mind - perhaps a comparison model, comparing the economic / unit output / unit damage per player against each other during a given match, and averaging it out over every game played. Outputting this raw data to a file in the lobby server could allow a stats system easily to be made that could even predict how fast a player learns or how unpredictable they play.

[smoth]

the ladder needs to be part of spring.

[Nemo]

PS calling the devs (who are working on a hobby project, for free, in their spare time) lazy if they don't implement something you're suggesting is a great way to be totally ignored by all the people who matter (ie, devs).

[Scratch]

Good point. I've always considered the dev's in the highest regard.

It's not meant as an insult. Its just that in my opinion a meaningful ranking system should be comparably very easy to implement. Seriously coding a subroutine that simply adds up gametime hours is probably not that hard. Not when looking at what it takes to troubleshoot these sync errors. It is probably taking hundreds of hours to test the sync errors out. Once we the players decide on a decent ranking system, I'd bet it would take maybe 30 hours to implement a pre beta of it, then test it, then fix the bugs.

Lets look at the payoff priorities -

#1 Sync Errors - are not nearly as much of a problem as they were.
#2 Lua - needs some work.
#3 Bugs - there aren't many bugs in the spring engine that I notice.

#3 RANK - For the amount of coding time it would take to fix the above problems, if you divided it into half and spent it on rank, people would love the devs for it. We would have an awesome rank system that would totally get people deep into this game.

Also, my opinion is the ladder is more or less moot. Only the most competitive players seem to play on it. We need a system that automatically starts logging player improvement over time so noobs are more involved.

[Neddie]

The moment that you make such a system compulsory you render play open to a number of complex problems. What about people who don't play to win, but rather for the challenge? What about stacked games which will persist regardless of rank because clans or friends will play together? What about the dozens of different games on the engine? Will you grade them separately?

There are scores of issues with an integrated rating system, and nobody has offered a solution to more than a handful.

[Scratch]

perhaps a comparison model, comparing the economic / unit output / unit damage per player against each other during a given match, and averaging it out over every game played. Outputting this raw data to a file in the lobby server could allow a stats system easily to be made that could even predict how fast a player learns or how unpredictable they play.

didn't mention win/loss ratio. Example (Pseudo code)

Client:

OutputToLobbyFile(
TotalDmgAK,
TotalDmgRocko,
TotalDmgFlash,
TotalDmgBulldog,
TotalDmgKrogoth,

TotalEOutput,
TotalMInput,
)

Lobby:


void GameJustEnded()
{
CalculateIndividualAverages (
AKDmg,
BullDogDmg,
KrogothDmg,
EconomicOutput,
)

TotalGameComparison = Call function (compare CalculateIndividualAverages with other players CalculateIndividualAverages)

// bad pseudo here:
then calculate total averages of all played games with this one, for each and every unit/category of relevance.

OutputThisResultToStatsFile();
}

Then do whatever you web guys do to make a good stats web site, or build a stats page into the client. Possibly make rake insignia based on it as well.

[Neddie]

That would require you to mathematically model skill. How would you model all the nuances of play to generate a useful rating?

[Peet]

pseudocode (and forgot to use [ code]

So everyone plays BA?

[Scratch]

stick with the rank system you have then

course I'm biased on BA, considering if you want new players they will automatically play BA first.

You could also find a way to generalize these variables so they would work on any mod if you wanted it that way.

[Neddie]

stick with the rank system you have then

No, I'm interested in your suggestion. We can use it if you can make it high enough resolution that it will have some relevance. We can develop controls to manage it. You just need to carry out your theory to a conclusion.

[Scratch]

I dont have the time, i'm trying to get you guys started on it. Please you guys. It shouldn't take much effort to make a killer rank system.

ps. that's my conclusion, make that pseudo code real (i'd like to help but my c++ is waaaay rusty)

[Neddie]

Well, I don't have the time, but if you're willing to wait a few months, I might have a deliverable.

[Peet]

Basically, a global gameplay-based rank system would be mod reliant. Separate systems would be necessary for each mod, and peoples' skill in one mod should not affect their rank in another nor a global setting, unless we set up a TASServer for each mod.