Spring RTS Engine

Anytime you make a rank that can decriment (and this is universal accross genres, look at FPS or MMORPG) people will try to spoof the system in whatever way they can. So things like win/loss ratio should be avoided for general users (competetive ladders are another situation). Only incrementing stats, like plain wins without losses, cause less dificulty.

Basically, the more you do something, the better you get at it, obviously theres a few exceptions/problems when it comes to spring, players who have spent 100 hours playing speed metal would probably lose on a map like brazilian battlefield to a guy who has played 50 hours on similar non metal maps and hence unbalance the game.

However I can safely say, I was way better at around the 300 hour mark than I was at the 100 hour mark, similary I was better at 500 than 300,
Theres so many star players out there... another 2 or 3 ranks will definately help when balancing games. I mean cabbage, daywalker and machio vs 3 100 hour players is probably only gonna end 1 way insnt it.

usually just me would ^^,

nah +1

/me continues to suck on my LOLLYPOP

sorry that joke was terrible >< it sounded funny in my head though ^^

The main problem with the rank system is that it doesn├óÔé¼Ôäót take into account the time spent playing other RTS games. Lets face it if you good at one RTS after a few game in another one you are probably reasonability good at it to├óÔé¼┬ª 100 hours is more then enough to become a pro├óÔé¼┬ª

I totally agree, Randy is a good example of this, of course I dont think time is a perfect indicator of skill, but in most cases it gives you a good idea, a couple of extra ranks cant hurt.

if you do implement it please no 1000 hour rank as I swore id stop playing when I hit that, if you make the highest 500 I'll just never look at my ingame time and I can keep kidding myself Im still way off 1000

Longaxe wrote:The main problem with the rank system is that it doesn├óÔé¼Ôäót take into account the time spent playing other RTS games. Lets face it if you good at one RTS after a few game in another one you are probably reasonability good at it to├óÔé¼┬ª 100 hours is more then enough to become a pro├óÔé¼┬ª

I have to disagree with that assertion. The RTS genre is varied, and it is divided. Check out the RTT games like MechCommander - those people don't stand a chance when they need to manage an economy. Warcraft people depend on heroes - watch out when they come to AoE II, they don't stand a chance.

Within a subgenre, maybe, but not within all RTS. The only abilities that translate across perfectly are Micromanagement and generalized overhead strategy.

neddiedrow wrote:

Longaxe wrote:The main problem with the rank system is that it doesn├óÔé¼Ôäót take into account the time spent playing other RTS games. Lets face it if you good at one RTS after a few game in another one you are probably reasonability good at it to├óÔé¼┬ª 100 hours is more then enough to become a pro├óÔé¼┬ª

I have to disagree with that assertion. The RTS genre is varied, and it is divided. Check out the RTT games like MechCommander - those people don't stand a chance when they need to manage an economy. Warcraft people depend on heroes - watch out when they come to AoE II, they don't stand a chance.

Within a subgenre, maybe, but not within all RTS. The only abilities that translate across perfectly are Micromanagement and generalized overhead strategy.

Not to mention the fact that most of those games have no aircraft in the Spring sense of the word, and as such, those players will likely neglect their AA and die to the first Avenger rush.....

There will always be a period of adjustment from one RTS to the other, but in the end, a lot of the skills are transferable. I played a lot of Dawn of War before coming to Spring and that made heavy use of heros, yet I adapted quickly enough.

BigSteve wrote:/me continues to suck on my LOLLYPOP

*dies*

BigSteve wrote:I mean cabbage, daywalker and machio vs 3 100 hour players is probably only gonna end 1 way insnt it.

I think I beat cabbage with 100h ^^.

how about a NUMBER! instead of a rank...




and get this!! it can be a floating point decimal!


and guess what the number IS!


= # hours played.

sigh.

40 votes for yes

the idea of ranks is totally useless, people think that you are n00b (and yes with the 0's and not the o's) when they see your low rank, while actually it is a good player who is using a different/new name, the other problem is that too many people know rts games well, so even if they are new in this one, they are still good, so it does not cover experience, and it obviously does not cover skill as stated above, there is no use to it, so in my opinion it is preferred to disable ranks entirely.

bump

I suggest:


Rank 6 @ 300 hours
Rank 7 @ 1000 hours

AFLobby has 16 ranks.

In time it will be more advantageous to have a high rank than to create a new account and smurf on a lower rank. That is all dependant upon my plans for the direction I will take AFLobby.

I suggested more ranks a while ago, but the Devs rejected my idea. Said spring wasn't ready for it.
Perhaps its time to resuggest it?

AF already has a solution on the line, unless I am much mistaken.

*win lose ratio ftw*