Spring RTS Engine

i'd like to see a rank 6, and possibly rank 7.

rank 6 could be 300 hours, rank 7 @ 1000 or something like that. i'd just like to be able to discern between the usual rank 5 players and the uberleets. higher ranks also have the possibly of keeping vets around to play more often. it's a win/win.

tbh I think 100 hours as final rank is fine. at 100 hours you know the ropes and can play to the best of your ability. having a 1000 hour rank for people like BigSteve and the admins would just be silly

Rank isnt everything, but maybe it will decrease smurfs since you have a new goal to obtain. +1 on the ranks

tbh I think 100 hours as final rank is fine. at 100 hours you know the ropes and can play to the best of your ability

Thats what i thought when i had 100 hours ingame time...Trust me, you're wrong. Ask anyone around 300+ they'll all tell you they learned lots since 100 hours and are still learning.

id say more ranks, but not in the 100+ spectrum. Put them at 50h, 75h etc.

da highest rank is a [SmuG] tag



smorg gurt

Maybe besides ranks for time played, you could have ranks for win-to-loss ratio. That would probably (read: possibly) be a better way to judge "noobiness".

Time multiplied by win/loss ratio?

I agree, a rank that shows how much a person wins would be nice to judge abilities. Perhaps even ranks for each mod since a veteran at AA won't necessarily be a veteran at NB and it'd be nice to know who you're going against.

Hm, special rank for metalmaps?

You could give people additional stars for each time they get 100hours. Then you could see how few stars I have

noooooooooo no higher time based ranks, then people can see how much i have played without decimator posting my ingame in #main!

Ishach wrote:da highest rank is a [SmuG] tag



smorg gurt

bah!

***CHALLENGE EXTENDED***

obviously at XTA though..

Back on topic, more ranks ftw!

I would say mod based ranks would be better.

I like more XTA but as there are not that many players I play from time to time AA.... And if I'm tired enough I will start with Jethro-s

Higher rank plx, so I can laugh at day ^^.

KDR_11k wrote:Time multiplied by win/loss ratio?

I agree, a rank that shows how much a person wins would be nice to judge abilities. Perhaps even ranks for each mod since a veteran at AA won't necessarily be a veteran at NB and it'd be nice to know who you're going against.

Hm, special rank for metalmaps?

win/loss ratio is not stored and would be to easy to cheat

I would think win/loss would also encourage smurfing, since people would only want to record games on there main when "on their game".

What the hell is smurfing?

Also, NO new ranks. Its just another catalyst to encourage cheating. The current ranking system is fine.

catalyst to encourage cheating?

WTF are you talking about.



no, never make rank based on win percentage. THAT will encourage team stacking and other lame shit. keep rank based on time played, but give us a bit more headroom, as there are hundreds and hundreds of rank 5 players.

Sheekel wrote: Also, NO new ranks. Its just another catalyst to encourage cheating. The current ranking system is fine.

I don't see any logic in this O.O


Anyway for those who want win/loss ranking, there is one already (cough ladder) only its better since it doesnt record win/loss but overall ranking similar to chess ranking system.

I Agree that there should be more ranks, but I also think that each mod should have one indenpendent rank, with maybe one overall rank.

Yeah, unfortunately rank whoring will break it. I'd like to just see what to expect from the other people in the match.