Extra rank weight should NOT be added to Veteran accounts

[lurker]

honestly, who cares? who the fuck cares?

Obviously not the devs ¬_¬

devs = ?

[REVENGE]

honestly, who cares? who the fuck cares?

Obviously not the devs ¬_¬

devs = ?

YYYYYOOOOOOOUUUUUUUU!

:/ I guess this all goes back to the "we should have a better ranking system suggestion" eh?

And come to think of it, could we have a separate rank for different mods? I'm not sure I've ever seen an example of this, but then again I don't know of any RTS multi-mod/game multiplayer clients on the net.

[smoth]

I would like to at least see game based ranks.

[Jazcash]

I would like to at least see game based ranks.

So you can look down on all the new Gundam players

[smoth]

nah

[Licho]

devs = ?

People occassionally capable of doing something instead of just sitting on their ass and complaining.

[smoth]

You forgot the "when the whim suits the task part"

[1v0ry_k1ng]

I think gold star and vet star should be worth the same. reason: by the time you reach gold star, your as good as your going to get. you might learn a few new tricks, but odds are high that by this point you dont play that regular anymore.

[danuker]

instead of just sitting on their ass and complaining.

Complaints are better than no complaints.

[SwiftSpear]

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. :/

Because of the hourage jumping up massive ammounts for each next rank, it's already balancing on a curve.

[TradeMark]

Just create a new account with your nick name reversed, tadaa problem solved! Now you wont get all the noobs in your team anymore

Though, there are cons: some wannabe Veterans act like "omg i have 10000000 ingame time dont give me advices you noob!"

--

Would be cool if the ranks would change depending on how many games you have won (length at least 15mins)

When you suck a lot, your rank would go lower, and when you are good again, your rank would rise higher...

Its silly that if i played Spring 2 years every fucking day 6 hours at a time, and then make long pause, and continue playing with my Veteran account, it still thinks i am fucking good player, because i have played so long. Also people seem to think this way o.O its annoying... "omg hes vet! put those all 4 noobs in his team and all gold stars in our team!!!" like i was worth more than one player >_>

It doesnt make sense in any way really... the time you have played cant be really compared to your skills... if you are lazy player and dont even try to learn to play good, like i am.

I would make this kind of formula (last 6 months games):
rank = (wins-phails)/unique_players

Added "unique players" so you cant spam the wins or losses so easily with same people, plus big FFA games wouldnt really make the rank so high, since the rank value gets divided by the amount of players... Also the 1v1 games would matter more in this ranking system...

Hmm, maybe it should have two ranking systems, team rank and 1v1 rank? Because team and 1v1 differs from each other a lot. If someone is good in team games, it doesnt mean hes good in 1v1 games as well, or the other way around.

Or maybe 3 ranks: 1v1, team, FFA.
Those differ a lot from each other, some people just suck in FFA, some people are good in it, etc.

Hmm, this starts reminding the personality test lol, "your score is: Defensive: 25%, Aggressive: 60%, Ragequiter: 15%, Teamplayer: 40%" =D i am DART player

[Tobi]

Just use manual balancing like in the good old days, and don't use autohosts.

There's no real reason to use them anymore except legacy ones - the next thing, relayed hosting, has a graphical interface (instead of a commandline interface) identical to when you'd host yourself since it seamlessly integrates with the lobby, while it has the same advantages as autohosts have: the hosting is done by a known good host and if the hoster ragequits the game continues.

Besides that relayed hosts don't clutter up the battle list with empty games because they only open a game when one is requested (by ticking the relayed host checkbox before hosting a game), and contrary to autohosts they do allow you to manually balance the teams using the GUI interface of your lobby.

Don't think this feature is in TASClient though.

[[TS]Lollocide]

Autohosts are the lifeblood of Spring.

Sure, private battles are good (Private as in, someone who has a pulse is hosting them), but ultimately autohosts win because they are online 23/7 and have some sort of semi-democratic agreement (Player-based servers have sometimes devolved into 'I know this player rocks' style balances that end up with one team severly disadvantaged verses the other) (Ignoring Spaz's servers who assume that if you don't vote, you agree).

I'd relate my idea about player weighted accounts, as in, every game has a selector, you overrape a game as a noob (Everyone in the game is required to vote), if the enemy decide you are pwning everyone, you get a score far above and beyond the normal players.

Intra-player scores can be abused, but if we decide that playerscore are weighted based on the judging player time, a judging player time who has been around for a day gets less of a multiplier than a player who has been around for a year.

It would, of course, require a playerbase who aren't going to abuse this system, but given that a player who has been around for awhile is given a higher weighting than a noob, I figure that a player who has played a month has more of a value (Even if they have specced the month of gaming) is worth more balance wise than any rank-based system.

[CarRepairer]

Autohosts are the lifeblood of Spring.

Sure, private battles are good (Private as in, someone who has a pulse is hosting them), but ultimately autohosts win because they are online 23/7 and have some sort of semi-democratic agreement (Player-based servers have sometimes devolved into 'I know this player rocks' style balances that end up with one team severly disadvantaged verses the other) (Ignoring Spaz's servers who assume that if you don't vote, you agree).

I'd relate my idea about player weighted accounts, as in, every game has a selector, you overrape a game as a noob (Everyone in the game is required to vote), if the enemy decide you are pwning everyone, you get a score far above and beyond the normal players.

Intra-player scores can be abused, but if we decide that playerscore are weighted based on the judging player time, a judging player time who has been around for a day gets less of a multiplier than a player who has been around for a year.

It would, of course, require a playerbase who aren't going to abuse this system, but given that a player who has been around for awhile is given a higher weighting than a noob, I figure that a player who has played a month has more of a value (Even if they have specced the month of gaming) is worth more balance wise than any rank-based system.

Actually this isn't a bad idea. People will not likely abuse the system because to vote for a player means "I want that player on my team next time we play."

[Beherith]

Every time you say

It would, of course, require a playerbase who aren't going to abuse this system

Just image that your sefidel/knobhead/[any other troll] and think how youd abuse it.

[[TS]Lollocide]

I thought about it and to abuse it would take alot of time and the actual damage caused makes it barely even worth screwing with. Since the system would rely on multiple people judging how good a player is, even one troll vote does little to damage their ranking (9 people vote high, 1 votes low, you still end up with a high rank average).

And if we take into account that higher-ranked player's votes are multiplied, the damage caused by a smurf account is so minimal as to be non-existant and ultimately pointless as the only potential damage caused would just unbalance acouple of games until the average is reworked.

[Caradhras]

What about the most simple solution imaginable?

Just the number of games! Just show the number of played games in XTA for example, or BA/CA/WTF

It does have the same values compared to the current system, but is more transparent and makes more sense.
I see, you will need a player info page, where you can see all the details.

Maybe hosters could restrict their games to a value that they define.
"To join this game you need to have completed at least 10 games in XTA"
"...have won at least 10 games"
"...have been at least 25h ingame"
.
.
.

[manored]

I think a program capable of roughly determining whenever there was actual battle or the players were just messing around would be usefull. Something like a program estimating the balance of power and the amount of conflict in the game, so it could determine who didnt help, who did, who sucked, etc. It would take things such as the proximity of mexes to the commander upon start in account to balance for the differences in the starting economy, and also who shared resources.

[Jazcash]

I'd say base ranks upon an average of damage per game.

[SwiftSpear]

I think a program capable of roughly determining whenever there was actual battle or the players were just messing around would be usefull. Something like a program estimating the balance of power and the amount of conflict in the game, so it could determine who didnt help, who did, who sucked, etc. It would take things such as the proximity of mexes to the commander upon start in account to balance for the differences in the starting economy, and also who shared resources.

I think such a program would be a waste of server resources. Many of those calculations would be quite expensive.