player rank (agggrr!!!)

[malric]

or maybe i must await hours in lobby for host that does not kick low rank players?? (its very rare now)

I would say this is mod dependent . Most of XTA hosts I have seen are quite polite even to newcomers.

[Jazcash]

Smurfs should all go die in a pit full of custard and poo.

[smoth]

I would like to see the end to smurfs or at least make it harder for someone to do it.

[Jazcash]

I would like to see the end to smurfs or at least make it harder for someone to do it.

Amen to that.

[Neddie]

You've seen some of the idiocy other games have with statwhores? People disconnecting on the slightest sign of losing to keep their stats up? People stacking teams because they no longer want fair games but games where they win 100% of the time? Stat whoring fake games where people repeatedly beat fake players to grind their score up?

Hell, wins/losses is kinda useless as a stat for determining player quality anyway, you can be pretty sure our top players prefer playing against people on their level and rack up many losses that way.

Truths.

Also, smurfing allows me to play the bloody games from time to time, whereas actually using my normal account affords me continual abuse from login to logout. Unlike most of you, as an administrator I don't have the luxury of putting people on ignore and I don't have the audacity to use the full range of powers afforded to me to defend myself. These points are not up for debate.

The only way to avoid personal attacks is to be ineffective in a moderation role. Rather than simply be unresponsive and ineffectual under my normal user name I choose to be somebody entirely other and often only bring out my administration account when I observe problems which require the application of related powers. This allows me to remain relatively fair as a moderation entity while still enjoying the actual games I came here to play.

[Non0c3]

Maybe creating some tests that ensure that the player has some of the minimum skills. Like "build a +100m economy in less than X minutes" or beat X amount of AI opponent". It would not show who is the 1337 but could be usefull in filtering noobs.

[Hoi]

Maybe creating some tests that ensure that the player has some of the minimum skills. Like "build a +100m economy in less than X minutes" or beat X amount of AI opponent". It would not show who is the 1337 but could be usefull in filtering noobs.

No? that's pointless, there's nothing bad about noobs.

[smoth]

Maybe creating some tests that ensure that the player has some of the minimum skills. Like "build a +100m economy in less than X minutes" or beat X amount of AI opponent". It would not show who is the 1337 but could be usefull in filtering noobs.

Don't look at addressing users from the perspective of TA specific things.

[CarRepairer]

How about a win/loss point system, but all the ranks were entirely hidden? No one would have bragging rights so that issue is off the table. Hosts could still balance teams based on server responses. Deterrence of smurfing would still be desirable.

People would have the motivation to play well, but not go all out and grief or cheat because all that will do is get them teamed up with noobs, with none of the bragging rights of a high rank.

[Tribulexrenamed]

There comes a point where if you know all the players in your game can play, you dont give a shit about rank. The balance comes from the commanders the people have and the strategies they employ.


However, this situation is very difficult to achieve. In order to show that I dont give a shit about balance and would rather be on the team that easily pwns the other team rather than easily gets pwned by the other team, i tend to smurf when i play BA. This tends to insure better teamwork, and better tolerance for exorbitantly flashy "strats" that I like to employ. If you like, it also balances the 2.5k metal that sometimes ends up in the hands of the enemy. I find that I tend to want to play with a select few people, and will do almost anything to insure that I am playing with them. Perhaps you will see certain smurf clans, this is one example.


When i play XTA, no one really gives a shit about balance except Babbles, and this makes the game alot more fun. It turns into a game that is exciting, fun to play, and yes, actually FUNNY. Its enjoyable to play XTA, because everyone is there to play the game for the most part, and not to argue about balance.


Now, thats not saying I want people to go play xta. I would maybe like to see a slight increase in XTA players so its easier to play games earlier in the day. However, the smaller community lets people have more fun.


I have no idea what im trying to say here, except if you have a problem with me unbalancing shit you had best ban me from your servers (as XmasSlaughter and those multifarious Mephistoes hosts tend to be doing) because i dont really give a shit. Especially when it comes to BA, i play for lulz.

[panzeriv2]

If this is suggested before please address me and I'll delete this post.

And yes, Zoy the creator of the evil mod called The Showdown! requested this before, but I'd changed the idea.

Do a level system.
Yes I know this sounds suspiciously similar to those in RPG games, but it works. Rather then the evil system of counting how much time you spent. People could get more play time by becoming a spectator and going afk.

So, the level system could be like this:
Winning in 0-4 games: Newbie rank (lvl 0-4)
Winning in 5-9 games: Beginner rank (lvl 5-9)
Winning in 10-17 games: Average rank (lvl 10-17)
Winning in 18-28 games: Above average rank (lvl 18-28)
Winning in 29-44 games: Experianced rank (lvl 29-44)
Winning in 45-80 games: Highly Experianced rank (lvl 45-80)
Winning in 80-120 games: Veteran rank (lvl 80-120)
Winning in 121 games and above: ZOMGWTFBBQ player (lvl 121-infinity)

Smurfing could be more legal if this system is implemented. Also, this could avoid situations like and experianced player got beaten by a beginner rank (it happened before, I'm a witness!). If the game is won using cheats, it will be counted in a rather different way.

Cheating in 5-10 games: Autoer.
Cheating in 11-20 games: Macro.
Cheating in 21-30 games: Cheater.
Cheating in 31 and above games: Hacker.

I also suggest that you have a "tutorial bot", an autohost that always have an AI to train new players until at least the beginner rank.

And have more autohosts that only a certain rank could join.

This would need a new revision of Spring, sadly.

*runs away*

[REVENGE]

How about subjective ranking?

[[TS]Lollocide]

Assume the rank system is wrong and that everyone, including gold stars, is useless.

If a one bar player joins, ask them if they're a noob, most of the time a noob will go 'yea' or ignore you if they're a smurf.

Personally, I think that a system where you are allowed to rate players based on their skill IMMEDIATELY AFTER a game with them has ended would work better. As in.

A play a game with a noob who is uber-with it, I give them a 10/10.
After ten games rated similarly, if someone votes 1/10, their overall rating goes to 9/10.
etc.

I know every voting system is open to abuse, but atleast that way it takes a dedicated abuser a long time to tank someone's ratings.

Also, I had an idea a long while ago:

Achievements.

Now I know this is largely a Steam-based idea, but bare with me:

Imagine nuke rushing like a kid with ADD to the point that you manage to launch a nuke at your enemy on some non-metal map before the 8 minute marker, now imagine that but instead of the inner glory of 'I dun nuked 'em after 8 minutes!!!1!' you recieve a glorious message that stated you boldly 'Nuke rushed like a pro' so that when you achieved it, it was proudly displayed for all to see.

Awesome, no? Well tough, I'm already doing that system, so you can wait until I'm done to revel in your glory.

[Tribulexrenamed]

Think about this: If you counted rank any other way than by gametime, then I would be a permanent smurf. Appreciate what I am by the current system.

[YHCIR]

Personally, I think that a system where you are allowed to rate players based on their skill IMMEDIATELY AFTER a game with them has ended would work better. As in.

Good idea

Also, I had an idea a long while ago:

Achievements.

Bad idea

Rating players is a good idea IMO, but will still be abused, people will revenge-rate, or people won't even bother rating at all.

Achievements are just a really really bad idea, I imagine it would take a fair bit of time to think of all the possible achievements, then take ages to refine the method for gaining the achievement, then people will just achievement-whore them (just like TF2) making the whole thing pointless.

The current system is not so bad, there are a handful of smurfs (not noticed many recently) and there area also a handful of people with a star that play as if they have just picked up the game. But most people are suited to their rank (most are a star or the one below really).


Number of wins/losses is stupid too (as KDR says), far too much abuse/stacking/whoring/clan stacking/crying. Hidden points wins/loss is no good, the players client would need to know this to balance the game, so anyone could access this value.

Making second accounts more difficult to get would solve most of the problem.

[[TS]Lollocide]

Achievements are just a really really bad idea, I imagine it would take a fair bit of time to think of all the possible achievements, then take ages to refine the method for gaining the achievement, then people will just achievement-whore them (just like TF2) making the whole thing pointless.

Most people on TF2 whored them for the new guns, in my experience, not for the pleasure of having a badge that says you grinded three hundred guys for 4 hours straight.

There would be no bonuses to spring achievements, just acouple of really random ones for giggles.

[[LBF]Vache]

Maybe creating some tests that ensure that the player has some of the minimum skills. Like "build a +100m economy in less than X minutes" or beat X amount of AI opponent". It would not show who is the 1337 but could be usefull in filtering noobs.

Don't look at addressing users from the perspective of TA specific things.

well , any estimation of a player level is mod specific..

And if you remove the examples the idea applies to any mod.

Making second accounts more difficult to get would solve most of the problem.

But is very hard to achieve