Rankings?

SinbadEV · Post by **SinbadEV** » 29 Aug 2005, 17:43

It's been mentioned that people might like to be ranked:
http://taspring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewt ... sc&start=0

Now personally I think that one more arena in which I can be publicly humiliated as a paramount loser might not be a good thing... but there is no reason why people can't do this independently, set up a system for it (web pages/forum updates, email lists, whatever...) a sytem of ranking, tournament rules... whatever... and just do it... then when you figure out what you are doing some devs (or you) can implement it into the program.

Games Should have a minimum of 4 players I think, that way we can have a mojority vote in the case of a contested victory.

Incomplete Games (including games where some of the players have left) couldn't be counted, and contested games could be arbitrated by people submitting replays.

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 29 Aug 2005, 17:58

i really want a 1v1 tourney. a system would be better though. i want to see if i am the best OTA player (@Spring) yet :D

SinbadEV · Post by **SinbadEV** » 29 Aug 2005, 18:48

Okay, Let's do this then.

I'll Edit this part of the message to reflect changes... don't be playing games until we say go...

I think a round robinlike/dutch set-up will work well... depends on participation...

So basically I'm hopeing for 16 players and do a:
ROUND/Players Game1 - 2 - 3 - 4
1/1vs2vs3vs4 - 5vs6vs7vs8 - 9vs10vs11vs12 - 13vs14vs15vs16
2/1vs5vs9vs13 - 2vs6vs10vs14 - 3vs7vs11vs15 - 4vs8vs12vs16
3/1vs6vs11vs16 - 2vs7vs12vs13 - 3vs8vs9vs14 - 4vs5vs10vs15
4/1vs7vs10vs14 - 2vs5vs9vs15 - 3vs... blargh... my brain hurts... anyways... in order for each player to play in one 4 player game with each of the other players, only once... you'd need 5 rounds, but my brain hurts now.... (16-1=15,4-1=3,15/3=5)

A map will be diecided on for each of the 5 rounds... (5 maps)

at the end the 4 players who have won the most games will go on to a final ffa against eachother, maybe playing first to 2 or something in multiple rounds.

We will also have to set a time limit on games, but there (in my mind) is no reason why you have to play round one first or anything... just if you see the right people in the place you can join invite them to join/host the battle

Sign-Ups:
Server UID - Prefered contact method
1. Sinbad_EV - Forum Post Update

ankh · Post by **ankh** » 29 Aug 2005, 18:55

SinbadEV wrote:(16-1=15,4-1=3,15/3=5)

Hmmm not just (Nplayer/Nteam) +1 ???

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 29 Aug 2005, 19:00

if you are talking 16 players i agree it should be done 4 players/match
however my preferred way would be 2v2 so its a 2v2 tourney a 4forall is weird and really encourages porcing

SinbadEV · Post by **SinbadEV** » 29 Aug 2005, 19:37

that was a representation of my brain being crazied... but actually (Nentries-1)/(Nplayerspergame-1)=Nrounds

Well if it's 2v2 match, you need either to pick your teams in advance, or to play with every player against every player to avoid being stuck with the bad luck of playing with me as an ally...

so for a short tourney we could have either 4 teams of two...

1vs2,3vs4
1vs3,2vs4
1vs4,2vs3

or, if you don't have to have friends 4 players...

1+2vs3+4
1+3vs2+4
1+4vs2+4

something like that?

mongus · Post by **mongus** » 29 Aug 2005, 22:01

the ranking system is mainly to discriminate (and, carefull here, i use discriminate= realize who is and who is not) noobs from regular/more experienced players.

So you can get a idea who can you play against(teams), or how to behave in front of a weaker adversarie.

I dont think its intended as a real ranking, like a ladder or something.

A small champioship, otoh, sounds good :)

e: nice way to write discriminate.

Torrasque · Post by **Torrasque** » 29 Aug 2005, 23:19

I don't like ranking too, but, in warcraft 3, they are automatized tournament, sometime 1vs1, 2vs2 etc... wich are really cool.
(more info there : http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/w3xp- ... =Northrend )

But I don't know if it can bu used in spring, because in war3, games generally last 20 min.

WeaZ · Post by **WeaZ** » 31 Aug 2005, 01:50

someone may have mentioned this but I DO NOT like the idea of ranking a game unless everyone stays in the game the whole time... the only way to override it is if all the other ones vote that it was still fair... that way if in any way someone disconnects or a variety of other things someone can vote and say they thought the match was unfair...
if that was a load of crap and u didnt understand a word if it...
what im saying is I do not like CnC Gen ZH where if someone disconns (ur ally) and u lose like ur doomed to if its 2v1 then they get a win...
there is no way to ally and unally which I think if ur going to rank it then u shouldnt be able to ally and unally...

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 31 Aug 2005, 13:51

Ranking adds nothing to a game. It only serves to encourage cheating and elitism. For the same reason that postcounts were removed from this forum for the better of all members; ranking should never appear in Spring.

Collective statistics are cool though. I'd like to have a collective tally of units killed/lost :D

aGorm · Post by **aGorm** » 31 Aug 2005, 15:29

I dissagree. Ranking gives you somthing to strive for.
Fopr instance... Im almost alway Noob, or Crap, or whatevert he associated ranking is. But I like to know this fact. I like everyone else to know. And then I like to work on it till finaly im classed as almost noob, or not utter crap.

I dont actully quite understand why people are affraid of being ranked as crap in a game, after all, its just a game.
If some people become elitest, then, well, do you relay want to play with taht sort of person? I dont perticly.
And i liked the post counts. It was somthing fun to look at, plus you could tell who was active and who was just a casual broser.

aGorm

Maelstrom · Post by **Maelstrom** » 01 Sep 2005, 01:20

Well the ranking system is alright for now, as long as it does not get abused. I, as im really bad, will try not to play games against people ranked as really good, as I get killed in like 5 seconds. Its not fun. I will however, play against someone with one or 2 ^'s (chevrons? think thats what their called), as they are only a LITTLE bit better than me. Oh and as for the post count thing im number 46 on 118 posts

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 01 Sep 2005, 02:12

Well the ranks being based on time rather then wins is odd. I play TA Spring a lot, but i keep on loseing... badly.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 01 Sep 2005, 02:13

aGorm, if you wish to strive for something, strive to be able to beat everyone you play. Are you really that self-conceited (I know you aren't) that you need to be able to display your losses/wins to everyone?

Fopr instance... Im almost alway Noob, or Crap, or whatevert he associated ranking is. But I like to know this fact. I like everyone else to know. And then I like to work on it till finaly im classed as almost noob, or not utter crap.

The problem is that weaker players will show that they are noobs. The majority of better players won't want to waste time with the weaker players, and will only play with people of similar ranks. This means that noobs only get games with other noobs, and the divide expands.

Post counts have baaad effects on some people. They feel they have to be the number one poster at all costs; and will do anything to get there. Perhaps not you and I, but let's not forget Alantai's little spree, followed by his in depth analysis of post counts on the forums.

People like that also don't do to well with ranking systems.
It just moves the whole online gaming community from "let's have some fun games in a friendly environment" to a more competitive, but less fun "I need to win! I need to get better stats!"

GAR · Post by **GAR** » 01 Sep 2005, 04:46

Isn't this ranking business generating a lot of discussion.

I think the system based on how much you have played is a good indicator, not definitive of how well you may play.

And yes there are some people who will not want to add to the strength of the gaming talent by not playing less skillful players.

But hopefully there are enough skilled players out there that help others along by playing with them and offering advice (I know I have encountered them and they have helped me greatly. Now I can last twice as long before the defeat LOL).

I do not think that there is a perfect answer to this that will satify everyone. For me the ranking approach seems fine. If I miss read it and get my butt kicked sooner than expected then thats another lesson for me learnt.

For the more die hard fans may be some tournaments for different skill levels could be arranged, with the replays saved for all to see, to help others to get better. Those that participate should be applauded for having a go regardless of the outcome.

I expect that we need to accept the diversity of behavours and skill levels that will be attracked to this great game, and try to cater for some differences.

Besides we soon learn who are the players that want to have fun and those that don't.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 01 Sep 2005, 05:46

I have played a lot of games, but one time i actually WHATCHED a replay and noticed what they where doing that i wasent. I saw how they build such a strong economy and army, while i was still floundinering. So its a good idea to continualy fight new people, then whatch what they do. Also who boots someone from a game cause there too "noob"? Jerks, thats who!

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 01 Sep 2005, 12:23

heh, if you don't like a low rank feel free to !giverank 5... Although people will get pretty mad at you when you get your ass handed to you by rank 2's in team games when they are expecting you to carry the team.

Sheekel · Post by **Sheekel** » 01 Sep 2005, 23:24

personally i think that there should be a ranked "elitest" game type and a nonranked "for fun" game, cause in ranked games i just get bralwer-rushed and the game is over in 7 minutes! How is that fun

Judgment123 · Post by **Judgment123** » 02 Sep 2005, 00:45

Perhaps a feature could be added to the Guardian, or whatever replaces him in the future, that allows players to check up on how many hours they have played and/or how many hours are needs to proceed to the next ranking level. As I see it, such a feature would be extremely beneficial.

Torrasque · Post by **Torrasque** » 02 Sep 2005, 00:51

Judgment123 wrote:Perhaps a feature could be added to the Guardian, or whatever replaces him in the future, that allows players to check up on how many hours they have played and/or how many hours are needs to proceed to the next ranking level. As I see it, such a feature would be extremely beneficial.

Sorry It could be funny to see how many hours you've spend on spring...but I don't understand how it could be extremely benefical?

This rank is just an information...there is no need to want to have a better rank..at least, I thinked it was is purpose.

Spring RTS Engine

Rankings?

Rankings?

TOURNAMENT PRE-ALPHA 1

Re: TOURNAMENT PRE-ALPHA 1

Ranking + Hours Needed

Re: Ranking + Hours Needed