Spring RTS Engine

I think that imposing to every single autohost to set both an inferior and superior rank limit could have a huge improvement on playing experience for BA (yes i know this is general discussion, but that has to do with admin powers).

Assume every single autohost has to choose a rank range and stick to it. Otherwise they are just banned. There could be 3 categories or more, this is open to discussion:

[0-2]
[2-4]
[4-7], mostly [4-6] (I hesitate with [5-7])

As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) elo ranking is implemented but not based on ID, which anyway does not matter since people smurfs all the time with different accounts. If you need to keep your experienced/vet account because you want to play with other vet (raping five 1bar is not fun even for trolls), you will have to stick with your old account. Starting from that, and becasue TAS record all your renames, eveyone can see who you are even if you rename. Thus poeple will be more willing to use same account to let the elo ranking do its job and get ego-return from their play.

OK/CA achieved same thing (i.e. make people use only one account) using unlocking-unit-with-xp. I think this could actaully force people not to use smurfs.

The second good thing about this is that newbies wont be trolled and yield at by olded spring players who are the most rudes ones since they will be able to learn spring without them.

I am just a player, I dont (wont) code for a ranking method based on whatever it is, but I think that as long nothing is done wrt coding, this could really improve playing experience for BA.


EDIT:

Because there is a time of the day where there is not a lot of players:
Poeple can still host their own game without subscribing to this rule.
Or you can authorize just one host to be multirank with a max of 5v5 for exemple.

EDIT 2:

This would be for BA only

>>using unlocking-unit-with-xp
Good idea!!

albator wrote:Assume every single autohost has to choose a rank range and stick to it. Otherwise they are just banned.

I choose 0-9001.

Assume every single autohost has to choose a rank range and stick to it. Otherwise they are just banned

so stupid i dont even know where to start. or there is something wrong with the sentence and it sounds different than it was supposed to.
ppl are not getting banned for racism and they are supposed to get banned for smurfing ? lmao

OK/CA achieved same thing (i.e. make people use only one account) using unlocking-unit-with-xp. I think this could actaully force people not to use smurfs.

the only thing 0k achieved were imba games (mainly due to locking essential buildings tho) and ppl beating each other fast in private, locked games to get exp.

smoth wrote:I choose 0-9001.

Read between the lines .

albator wrote:Assume every single autohost that hosts BA has to choose a rank range and stick to it.

I'm almost moving this to the BA forum as it does seem all about BA.... Out here such threads tend become derailed by those that don't realise the unspoken assumption is spring=BA.

Albator should first. Not all autohosts are ba.

By requiring a range limit on autohosts, you hurt other games.

So yeah, I could be ruder and want to be but there is the issue. Yet another thread mandating other games be hamstrung for ba. Hang on while I list a reason to not be openly hostile....

jamerlan wrote:>>using unlocking-unit-with-xp
Good idea!!

One of the coolest things zk has done so far IMO.

You want to actually separate the *large* spring/ba community into three divisions?
How long will it need to fill a new host when effectively only every third interested player is able to join due to rank limit?

Wombat wrote:

Assume every single autohost has to choose a rank range and stick to it. Otherwise they are just banned

so stupid i dont even know where to start. or there is something wrong with the sentence and it sounds different than it was supposed to.
ppl are not getting banned for racism and they are supposed to get banned for smurfing ? lmao

If I read correctly he said autohosts that dont have a ranklimit should be banned.
But still no idea why moderators/players tolerate smurfing (and racism also) at all.

There is racism on the server? You all look alike to me, well except for sefidel, that guy is my anti-drug.

very_bad_soldier wrote:You want to actually separate the *large* spring/ba community into three divisions?
How long will it need to fill a new host when effectively only every third interested player is able to join due to rank limit?

You r right, that the best reason not doing it.

very_bad_soldier wrote:You want to actually separate the *large* spring/ba community into three divisions?
How long will it need to fill a new host when effectively only every third interested player is able to join due to rank limit?

1x 12v12 vs 3x 4v4, which is faster to start and why

I find all this as not needed. Only thing that can ruin games like 5v5 is when veteran clan stacks vs non clan veterans. But that is issue that your solution would not fix.

In my eyes spring has one of best systems for autobalance.

A good way to resolve that would be to make cbalance ignore clans unless there are at least two clans playing, and an approximately equal number of players from each clan.

Johannes wrote:

very_bad_soldier wrote:You want to actually separate the *large* spring/ba community into three divisions?
How long will it need to fill a new host when effectively only every third interested player is able to join due to rank limit?

1x 12v12 vs 3x 4v4, which is faster to start and why

No idea, frankly.
But why do you think that a rank limit would suddenly make people want to participate in smaller games in the first place? The 12vs12-DSD-crowd would probably stop playing at all before playing a 4vs4.

zerver wrote:A good way to resolve that would be to make cbalance ignore clans unless there are at least two clans playing, and an approximately equal number of players from each clan.

You can configure SPADS to only obey clan tags if it does not lead to maxUnbalance greater <random threshold>. People demand to play with their clan mates though. I can understand that to a degree.
The problem is that the "Pros" clan-up with random clan tags (or pset) on an hourly basis so they can cluster even if they are originally not in the same clan.

very_bad_soldier wrote:

zerver wrote:A good way to resolve that would be to make cbalance ignore clans unless there are at least two clans playing, and an approximately equal number of players from each clan.

You can configure SPADS to only obey clan tags if it does not lead to maxUnbalance greater <random threshold>. People demand to play with their clan mates though. I can understand that to a degree.
The problem is that the "Pros" clan-up with random clan tags (or pset) on an hourly basis so they can cluster even if they are originally not in the same clan.

Exctly and that the reason why a true ranking system is required.

And the only way I see to do that right now is to use ELO ranking. (Notice the temporary in the topic)

Like in any game, if you are expecting a player to keep his account and not create a thousand, you need to give him something in return. CA manage to do that with the lock/unlock unit system (which i am really not found of since it unba the game). I am just pointing out A TEMPORARY solution to solve the problem.

Far from me to pretend that is the best one, but i think that will give a lot of air to players for the reasons I mentionned before (noob dont get agressed until they know a bit about the game, balance improvement of the game, ego growing cause of rank which make playssr want to be better thus play more)

Also, poeple can still host their own game in case of really a few number of player. Or you can authorize just one host to be multirank with a max of 5v5 for exemple.