suggestion - more ranks

[Neddie]

I can handle it meant I can accept it, not that I have a solution, though I used my insomnia last night to contemplate.

[hollowsoul]

Just have basic ranks based on hours
i.e
0 = starter
1 = 24 hours gameplay
2 = week of gameplay
3 = month

Once u read rank3 u cant go lower,
4->6 hours get reset once / twice a week
4 = 12 hours
5 = 24
6 = week

Just a though, maybe someone can mess with numbers abit. But u get the idea

[malric]

With all this ranks discussion a funny idea crossed my mind - we should have something to allow to enter a battle without your name/rank being shown. So everbody could enter but no one will know how good are is the team/opponents... People loose a lot of time 'balancing' the teams when in fact we all know sometimes ranks are misleading.

PS: this idea is in the same category as the cow and the rabbit maps, I do agree, so please take just as a funny idea and not as something really serious.

[drolito]

3 monthes ago these have been made : same ranks for all during 2 hours (maybe a bug ?!?) ... and it was very very funny because have to find noob to help them defend ... maybe that can be make 1 day per week ?

But for ranks i think that when we are playing lot of time, we know the good and bad players even if they have a rank 0 ... i have seen lot of stars who sucks and lot of ranks 2 or 3 who are very very good ...
And some players are good for a map but sucks for others maps ...

so what about let these rank and play ?

[tombom]

That happened because you were on a different server.

[Tobi]

We don't need more ranks (in time). We could use ranks per mod TBH.

[DemO]

Well, the overwhelming consensus seems to be that the community wants more ranks. Sure we don't NEED them, just like we don't NEED LUA, but it would be a nice, welcome and generally wanted addition to the lobby client.

Not to mention the benefits so far as being able to balance games more accurately.

[FLOZi]

We don't need more ranks (in time). We could use ranks per mod TBH.

+1

[LordMatt]

just like we don't NEED LUA

We NEED lua.

[smoth]

We don't need more ranks (in time). We could use ranks per mod TBH.

:)

[jackalope]

more ranks plz

[Zydox]

I'd like to see a rank system with *3 heaps... or something like that... like the first level (5*3 = 15)

Soo:
1: >= 0h
2: >= 5h
3: >= 15h
4: >= 45h
5: >= 135h
6: >= 405h
7: >= 1215h

[drolito]

for being rank 7 u have to be 12 twice a star :D
if some players are bad with this rank ... i will think they are stupids !!!

[DemO]

Tired would probably get a rank 7 from somewhere. I'd get 2 rank 6 accounts the way zyd is saying he'd like it...

But, why not split it up more logically? For the first 20 hours or so theres not much difference in experience (because its only 20 hours) although I assume the ranks are set up the way they are just now to encourage people to keep playing at the start - they see their rank going up quickly so are encouraged.

I'd say after the 100 hour rank just go up something like:

100 hours
200 hours
300 hours
500 hours
750 hours
1000 hours

[Day]

yay for 1000hrs, then people wont have to ask my ingametime!

[Betalord]

I haven't really read all 7 pages of this thread, but here is my opinion:
adding more ranks based on your in-game time doesn't make much sense. I understand it's nice to have many ranks so you can progress through the system etc., but in-game time is useful merely to differentiate between beginners and more "experienced" players, in order to make more or less fair teams.

What would be best solution is to base ranks on the ranked games. Some kind of integrated ladder system, where host can select "ranked game" option before hosting a battle. Rank can then be based on an ELO rating of your played ranked games. Then you can have as many rank levels as you want.

[LordMatt]

Well ingame time actually becomes a somewhat better predictor of skill as you reach beyond the current ranks. There are absolutely huge disparities between skills of the star nubs and the good players. I have a feeling most of the good players have played more than the star nubs. That's why there is a lot of support for at least a few additional game time based ranks. Even if you did something simple like bronze star at 100 hours, silver star at 250 hours and gold star at 500 hours it would help differentiate between the experience of the star players. At any one time there are usually more star players on the lobby than any other rank.

[hrmph]

Even if you did something simple like bronze star at 100 hours, silver star at 250 hours and gold star at 500 hours it would help differentiate between the experience of the star players. At any one time there are usually more star players on the lobby than any other rank.

+1

[Ishach]

I haven't really read all 7 pages of this thread, but here is my opinion:
adding more ranks based on your in-game time doesn't make much sense. I understand it's nice to have many ranks so you can progress through the system etc., but in-game time is useful merely to differentiate between beginners and more "experienced" players, in order to make more or less fair teams.

What would be best solution is to base ranks on the ranked games. Some kind of integrated ladder system, where host can select "ranked game" option before hosting a battle. Rank can then be based on an ELO rating of your played ranked games. Then you can have as many rank levels as you want.

this is what supcom used and it wias alot of fun









EDIT: If people think a wins-losses system will be exploited, whats to stop people leaving games of spring open open all the time to rack up hours

[10053r]

Right now, the rating system is a very simple thing. It should not be construed as an attempt to rate how good a player is. In fact, I think that is a fairly difficult thing to do (see some easy exploits / problems below). Instead, it is like having a low user id on slashdot: purely an ego thing. And since I have been playing spring for a very long time, I fully support this silliness. It would indeed be nice if there was some way to rate players and auto-match them to appropriate opponents, but I submit that this is too hard a problem at this time. Consider:

1) Players setting up dummy games in which they win (or lose) in order to boost (or lower) their rank.

2) Players being really good at one mod, but being crappy at others.

3) Here's a subtle one: Player being really good at one version of one mod, but radical changes were made in the last revision of the mod so now how good are they?

4) Players being really good, but then not playing for a couple months (or in my case like 2 years between OTA and Spring) and getting rusty.

I'm sure the creative amongst you can come up with more issues that would have to be dealt with. Like it or not, ratings based on time are good precisely BECAUSE they are not very accurate. Everyone knows that they are not very accurate, so no one takes them too seriously. If we had a system that attempted to be good, people might start taking it seriously and I submit that that is a worse problem than no real ranking system at all.

On the other hand, I suggest we either come up with more icons, or simply report the amount of time spent in game. Also, report when their account was created. This will make it easy to see who the REALLY 1337 players are. And anyone who games that system will get exactly as much for their trouble as they deserve: nothing at all.