Spring RTS Engine

Can someone move me off rank one?? Only, With only 3 games ever going through and about 50 crashes, its realy starting to annoy me. That may sound liek an outragous request, but seriosly, i only want rank two... Is that so much to ask?

That or can people play me that know it wont crash or dyscy or anything please...

aGorm

The vast majority of people with high ranks just manually ranked themself when gaurdian was around, so don't feel bad about low ranking, most players don't have thier ranks because of games played.

See, this is why ranks are such a bad idea.

It gets to the point where it is not a helpful indicator, but a symbol of status that people actually care about.

I say the ranking system should be removed. Allow player stats to be shown, such as, games played won/lost, total units killed , total metal wasted, etc, etc, but no direct ranking system.

Warlord Zsinj wrote:...
It gets to the point where it is not a helpful indicator, ...
I say the ranking system should be removed. ...

I don't think so... The ranking is starting to become quite helpfull. When you see someone above rank 3 (the maximum we could set), you know for sure that that person knows how to play. Not that that person is very good. But if that is what you we're thinking that the rank represented, then it's your mistake because it represents experience and not quality.

Warlord Zsinj wrote:See, this is why ranks are such a bad idea.

It gets to the point where it is not a helpful indicator, but a symbol of status that people actually care about.

I say the ranking system should be removed. Allow player stats to be shown, such as, games played won/lost, total units killed , total metal wasted, etc, etc, but no direct ranking system.

I set myself to rank 3 because that's approximately where I am. There's still lots of people around at rank 2. The worst thing about it is the many rank 1 players that are pretty good beating high ranking players and throwing the system somewhat off kilter.

yeah i played with a rank 1 ally who was only slightly worse than me! xD

Cant quite belive you are taking this that seriosly!

To Warlord Zsinj... no, what your suggesting is ranks, just without the title...
People will read into it the same way!

The reson the current ranks are good is because its just how many games you played...

However, when last night I was 1 of 3 people with 1 rank out of 60 users, and i looked in help and it said 5 games or more to be rank 2... well seeing as id just had 4 games crash out on me no wonder i was miffed and hence this post!
I dont actully care, as long as no-one judges on my low rank that im rubish or anything!!

aGorm

You would be surprised the difference it would make.

Showing how many games a player has played is far more telling of their ability than a direct eschelon system "this player is better than this player, because he is higher ranked."

People don't like feeling below another person; especially for no good reason.

Again, the SY's removed visible post counts on the forums for a reason, surely they can see the same reason applies to ranks in Spring.

Ummmm do you know how those little symobls are decided? Its litteraly, how many games you have played. So ill quote this bit:

Showing how many games a player has played is far more telling of their ability than a direct eschelon system

5 ranks, means you can quicly see roughly were everyone is, without having to read a number that could become very long and take up a load of room. plus, what does it matter 50 games or 40? Theyve both been playing it for some time. The current system works fine.

(this is not to say i dont want to see stats AFTER a battle, they rule, just not needed in the lobby insted of ranks)

aGorm

For me, the best way is to make some tournament, not recording all your win/loss. I'm especially against it in teamplay, where players don't want to play with the "weaker" player because they don't want to have their stats down.
And don't say that's a small comunity and people will not do that because I'm sure it's wrong.

i'll take noobs under my wing :D as long as they are willing to learn the hard way =D

Hard Way = 10 minute Mark Brawler Rush?

I thought the ranks got boosted depending on hours played, not games. Also, I've definitely played more than five hours since the rank system was instated, and I'm still ranked level one (although I shouldn't complain because I still play like a n00b despite having been playing for years, but that's not the point). I think there's something a bit odd about my not going up a rank.

I got rank 2, but it might have been the 2 player game where the other guy paused for half an hour... I din't think I played all that much

Hard Way = 10 minute Mark Brawler Rush?
nah 40 second (or less :D) wsl rush or better yet lvl1 gship rush =D late game play in xta is so boring its not really worth the effort, the amount of games i've seen where the best porcers win X.x
The other day i met someone who built swarms of planes and conplanes only 'just for fun' hmmm....

OK, its a new lament... i got a game (finaly, but still rank one) but only after i promised to make two new maps befor my next game, assuming the game worked.
Idiot, cause then the game worked.

Oh well, guess i better get going on those maps...

aGorm

I'm going to be rank 2 forever! Oh well, like it even matters. We need a win/loss counter!

Bah, IF you really cares so much about rank, just put an emety game on and set an alarm clock for some hours.

Sersoly, dont complain about rank. If you dont like the teams, just say that ''im pretty good, like rank 3 or sometihing''.

I ranked up to rank 4 today... funny considering I've been doing nothing but losing to rank 3's and 2's recently

SwiftSpear wrote:I ranked up to rank 4 today... funny considering I've been doing nothing but losing to rank 3's and 2's recently

You can loose all your match and be experienced...