Extra rank weight should NOT be added to Veteran accounts

[REVENGE]

Suggestion:
When auto balancing, Highly Experienced and Veteran accounts should be weighted equally.

Reasoning:
My hunch is that typical experience vs. effectiveness curves are going to be logistic, so that last 1000h+ doesn't really do much.

That, and I hate zerox. :/

[Jazcash]

Players are always learning new things and improving. The more you play, the more you learn, same with anything else in life.
And in general, most Veterans are better than the majority of Gold stars. Of course there are exceptions but if you're going to take a small point like this into consideration then the huge issue of smurfing is addressed. No point twiddling with the high ranks when they are making new accounts all the time.

[REVENGE]

Players are always learning new things and improving. The more you play, the more you learn, same with anything else in life.
And in general, most Veterans are better than the majority of Gold stars. Of course there are exceptions but if you're going to take a small point like this into consideration then the huge issue of smurfing is addressed. No point twiddling with the high ranks when they are making new accounts all the time.

Fact of the matter is, a lot of smurfing today is caused by the extra weight added to vet players, which consequently teams vet players with nub players, with a high probability that the other team is either clanned, or is packed with experienced and highly experienced players who are actually good at the game. As for the more you play, the more you learn, what I said applies to real life as well.

[Peet]

Reverse the rank values! People will stop smurfing like *that*

[Evil4Zerggin]

Reverse the rank values! People will stop smurfing like *that*

Won't work; it just turns it into a golf-like system with the exact same outcome (assuming each team has the same number of people).

Players are always learning new things and improving. The more you play, the more you learn, same with anything else in life.

I'd certainly take someone who was a gold star over the same person when they were a normal star. However, across different people, which is what really matters, the trend isn't nearly as strong. Some people get better, but other people sit in the back every game and never learn to fight.

[Regret]

There needs to be a higher rank than vet star that gets manually assigned to players that are way too good. Like me.

[YHCIR]

Players are always learning new things and improving. The more you play, the more you learn, same with anything else in life.

Sadly this is not true of everyone, some people have blue stars and play like newbies.

Even just playing orange star, I often find myself on the team with 1 or 2 newbies and it pretty much dictates which team wins or loses (especially on DSD).
IMO 3 or more clan players on the same team should have much more weight.

[Jazcash]

Even just playing orange star, I often find myself on the team with 1 or 2 newbies and it pretty much dictates which team wins or loses (especially on DSD).
IMO 3 or more clan players on the same team should have much more weight.

My statement is true to the Spring extent. You will not see Veterans building windmills on Comet or Mexes on Greenfields. If there were few ranks, say 10 hours of gameplay, 300 hours and 1000, about 99% of the 1000 hour players will be better than the rest. It's only when ranks are close together the balance gets upset.

Players are always learning, they might not be always improving, but always learning. You cannot sit through 1000 hours of gameplay and not improve from when you first started. It's the 300 hours - 1000 hours players get mixed up.

[Argh]

Maybe just use Win:Lose and a rank vs. other players with similar W:L ratios (like most FPS ranking systems do- a nub killer doesn't rank like a true vet, basically) instead of time, and ban smurfing entirely, so that we have a pretty good idea of who actually has any skill?

Oh, wait... that would be logical and might make these problems irrelevant.

I don't even wanna hear the "people will cheat" thing. It's a "so what" issue, it wouldn't influence the actual games. And if pros want to throw a few games to nubs to lower their rank, so what? Nobody's going to bother with the opposite.

[Jazcash]

The Spring community finds the tiniest possible chance that a feature could be used wrongly and so do not implement it. Note the fact Atari could rape us all any minute and Spring community wants change.
Tbh, I'd rather see no smurfs than some guy cheating his rank.

[aegis]

yeah, but afaik we don't have any means of automatically enforcing a lack of smurfs, and it'd be a pain to manually enforce.

[CarRepairer]

It's a funny thought. W/L ratio system.

People would throw games to lower their rank so that they would be placed with better players in the next game in order to win which raises their rank again. *applause*

Okay kids let's try the other direction now!

People will perform desperate actions to a win a game in order to raise their ranks which would place them with newbs the next game and possibly cause them to lose so then their rank is lowered again.
*clap clap clap*

[[TS]Lollocide]

That's tardy, a W/L is better than playtime, but not much better as you still end up with Massively good players getting stuck with the massively bad ones.

I think that the best system for this would be a player voting system, open to a abuse like everything but so is smurfing. A player gets an option to vote on how another player played, if they thought them helpful (or a smurf), they give them a 10. If awful a 1. That limits the damage a smurf can do past one or two games because people will instantly vote 10 on smurfs and their rank will immediately rise quickly. This also helps new players who are actually decent get ahead quickly, showing their skill rather than the time played and also helps the truly awful by marking them as what they are, truly bloody awful.

[Jazcash]

Anything on a game is hard to enforce, for example banning players. However it does significantly lower the occurrence of the issue which helps. I wouldn't care if it didn't stop smurfs but if it lowered the amount of smurfs, I would be happy.

At the moment smurfing causes a lot more problems and issues than good. Hell you can't even ban/mute someone in your channel anymore because they'll just go create a new account.

You can't keep the bad players out, but you can certainly make it harder for them.

[BattleMonk]

smurfing isnt as easy as ppl think because theres loads of rank limits on bots and games and it isnt worth smurfing because it takes ages to find a game which doesnt kick u

[Beherith]

Just glance at at the vet star players list in main and then tell me that based on random sampling, the vet star wont be 16% better than the gold.

[BaNa]

honestly, who cares? who the fuck cares?

[Jazcash]

honestly, who cares? who the fuck cares?

Obviously not the devs ¬_¬

[Beherith]

honestly, who cares? who the fuck cares?

Stfu bana or ill have your accounts added up!

[BaNa]

honestly, who cares? who the fuck cares?

Stfu bana or ill have your accounts added up!

oh shush or ill have the time you specced subtracted from yours