ranks are dumb and elitist as shit. also when someone says "ive been playing this game forever" and can't place a wall they are always full of crap
There will always be those that choose to abuse. And the community will flush them out. It shouldn't warrant removal of the concept though. I totally agree with the logarithmic. And top rank needs to be adjusted based on someone who has played since day 1 and almost impossible to achieve. Although I'm sure the devs will claim top ranks by bypassing the system for ego purposes. Then maybe pay a fee and get bumped - or some shit like that. Sanctum 2 has a 1-40 ranking system, and getting to 40 required only about 40 hours of play time. It's so disappointing to be sitting at 40 with no place else to go. But from another perspective you have to decide what this ranking system is intended for - certainly not for bragging rights. I think once you get beyond XXXX hours (maybe as low as 1000) - then you are a vet and we all know vets each excel in different areas. Someone who rarely kills but is kick ass engineer is as valuable as the best killer in the game. It might be cool to have different scales for each rank - uber Engie, Uber Gren, Uber Rifleman, Idiot Scout... So you get a 8 digits 0..FF defining your class and some corresponding rank. The best players may be 10:FF:05:02 for Engineer:gren:riflemancout and you could come up with a huge list of funny and normal names for guys in different ranges. Anyone who reach's <10:<10:<10:FF is named "SPIKE the Exploiter". <10 means less than ten. 00:00:00:00 is "bag oh hammers noob". Would make the class system kinda fun and funny as well. Might be nice to see the actual scores in the team menu since most won't remember the miriad of names. The named rank would just be something for fun and we all love to earn new achievements. But only intended to define who is really a new player and who is not. It is not intended to provide any more benefits in the game. Also at join time a team with all FF's in one rank should certainly feel pretty shitty about beating a team with <80 and should make guys realize they need to balance or the game will be shit.
Simplified into non programmer speak. 0..9 for each class. 9:9:9:9 is uber player +1 every hundred hours. Every vet will surely have a score of 9 quickly and not intended for bragging rights - only to flush out the noobs. Use funny names for each of the 10 scales. The 00.FF was 256 scales which would be for the guy who wants to come up with a list of 4,294,967,296 ranks or smaller and would enable the bragging rights implementation. I think the 0..9 is enough to define a new player and a manageable list of upto 10,000 funny names. Divide by 100 for 100 funny names.
You know what would be cool mmr. Fucking no joke hidden mmr to balance teams. Every players gets a base mmr of X, every round they win they get + y points. If you want to join a team the teams mmr must not be Z higher than other teams mmr. If the team that loses has higher mmr than the other team theyll lose more points so -Y-A, and opposing team will win more +Y+A. If its an expected loss or expted win itll be -y+B and +Y-B. basicly what dota does.
Implemented in logs it would be 0= 0 hours 1= 5 hours 2=20 hours 3=50 hours 4=100 hours 5=200 hours 6=500 7=1000 8=2000 9=5000 and 10=10000 pretty sure only a handfull wil be 9's and doubt anyone here is 10.
Understood, I think everyone knows what logarithmic ranking is. But again the ranking is not intended for vets bragging rights. A vet will hit full score within a year. A player who has a full 1000 hours under his belt is a decent player although may still suck compared to other vets. But he knows how to play the game and all the maps. Anything less points to someone who may need a little coaching. I hate not knowing who is a vet and who is new. Ego should not drive the ranking system. Also instead of logarithmic the higher scale of 0.255 would require someone to reach full rank of 255 (FF hex) at 25,500 hours. Which is probably 12 years of playing a single rank. So you would have alot of guys with a rank of 50-100 and no where near the full hard to achieva rank of 255. This assumes 100 hours per level. Obviously you could do 10 per level for 2,550 levels or a little over a year of experience.
I guess you never played any ranked mmo game ever A good way to keep the shittalk at bay is only showing huge skill differences. Seperate the mmr by tiers and only show those helps. It wont stop the shittalk but people in the same tier cant dis each other constantly and argue which one is "better" and can make the calls. Their are alot of players with tons of playtime under their belt that totaly suck. Im not talking about fighting skills because thats something you could debate for hours but stuff like awareness, knowing where to go at anytime in the game. Really good players are those that know what to do in the midgame without guidance. With other words game sence is what separates good players from top players. Knowing when they rush or ninja without having any evidence on the minimap. Knowing why they turtle or push and what this tells you about their research. The almost psychic skill to know when they will attack from which side in infantry engagements etc.. Its hard to balance teams even with a ranking system, its kinda like dota 2 because the individual skill counts more than the average team skill in pub games.
Wow no way someone gets to 10000 hours in a year, I have like just under 6k hours now and thats over X years. Only person here with close to 10k hours is I have no clue maybe youzy?
I don't how to feel about this, I do try to play games on the losing side, so I tend to lose a lot. This makes it sound like I will be considered a permanent noob, even though I can play the game half decently. Though if it is affecting everyone then teams shouldn't be so horribly one sided or whatever, so it might be cool.
Not really cause after a while cause you dropped this much mmr whilst you should actually be at lets say 4k and you got classified with 3k for spending time on losing team your team should have the advantage even though on paper it doesnt if you know what I mean. This system is ment to work in the long run not the short one and since empires is a long run game in the end when everyone has a good mmr stacking is goingto be basicly impossible but stacking with friends will remain possible. + we should turn of mp teambalance and make the mmr public. Reasons for this is. If you can stack 2-10 with the correct mmrs lets say 10 newbies with 2k mmr and 2 vets with both 10k mmr the vets will still lose and drop in mmr, and since everyone on the internet and especially on empires likes to measure dick so much they wont want to play with x people less + if it still occurs to be lets say 14 vs 17 with 10 vets one side and 5 others, theres going to be lots of room in the 17 team side which will probably result in a win for the 17 team and more mmr for them whilst the 10 vets lose mmr. I feel like making a public rank wants people to show of e penis lenght and play more serious. I might be completely wrong but I doubt it, Im paradox. edit: You could implement a margin system too, like total mmr of this team is 50k whilst other team is 55k which is just within limitations. Since server keeps a 5k margin. or some shit like that. So basicly if its completely fair game 50k vs 50k 5 news wth 1k mmr can join 1 team. edit: after tlaking to candles Its the ELO system of chess Im talking about
Agreed FN - and Paradox - you can't make a system that encourages someone to play for kill counts, or as a solo player. I hate the players who are out to rack up kills but will run through a barracks without taking it out. Guys more willing to push as Rifleman than Engie are useful if you have ONE, but grens and engies are more useful to take out bases. The proposal is simply to weed out who is a noob or fairly recent player. Not one that defines a highly skilled player. The 12 Year ranking is that method that weighs more towards showing who has been around since the beginning, but that is bragging rights and I think the system should be simple and only out as far as 2 years. So everyone talking here would be maxxed out. New players would stand out and SHOULD encourage players to help them. It should enable players to easily see that they are fucking over the game by stacking prior to start of a game. I know alot has been tried in the past. But I think that focus was more on skill level and not simply hours of game play. If you do hours of game play it would just encourage more game play - not behavior towards a higher rank based on shooting 100 ppl in one game or something silly like that. And it should be based on GAMEPLAY - not spec time.
My ranking doesnt encourage kill count but encourages winning. Its not based on anything except if you win or lose. I dont get how its negative if we get hours of game play so people will want to play more lol? And even if its spec, I have had plenty of times where Im like ima just spectate some empires and then I end up playing. And since its logaritmic it really doesnt matter if you are a 7 or an 8.
seeing as empires is a community of stackers anyway, maybe a matchmaking system which builds up on that is the solution afterall?
Padding is definitely what would occur if ranks were introduced, and I'm sure many of you fucks would stack more often just to this reason. That said, Mayama's idea of a small amount of tiers, using Parabro's "can't join if X higher" might work. Say we have 4 ranks; Recruit, Soldier, Sergeant and General. They count for points 1 to 4 respectively, and you can't join a team which is more than 10 points over. You'd have to organize the ranks based on something other than win % or kd ratio, as these would encourage stacking and farming. Points per match would probably be best, although this would have to be done on a % from the top basis, as otherwise APC rushing would suddenly become a sin. So at the end of every game, each player would be assigned a decimal number based on their points in comparison to the highest in the round. This is getting hard to explain clearly, even for me, so let me demonstrate. Keep in mind this would only count for games where you played from start to finish, and as people would ragequit if they were doing badly, there would have to be a solution thought up about this. With such low populations online, leaving penalties are a bad idea. There would also have to be a minimum playercount for them to come into effect Example scoreboard. Not indicative of player skill, just the names that came to my head. Code: Paradox = 90 Youzy = 88 AzK = 86 Sgt. Security = 82 FN = 79 Trickster = 78 Mayama = 75 Hobbes = 72 Nihia = 72 Reznov = 70 Capguy = 67 Cabguy = 67 Catguy = 67 Grantrithor = 64 Guns & Whammo = 61 Craig Gates = 57 AnimalScar = 55 Aridian = 53 Candles = 49 Harryhoot = 47 BigTeef = 23 Devourawr = 20 So in our example round, Paradox jumped in an APC and used a chaingun for 30 minutes like the filthy whore he is. He gets 1 point because he is at the top. I, on the other hand, only get 20 points because for some reason a bunch of decent players hopped on at the same time and I got destroyed. I get 20/90 points, so .222. We could average these scores over the previous 30 games played to get a sense of who is what. Keeping them relevant to the past 30 games establishes the right amount of fluctuation without being lenient to those who will simply play games by themselves to be at the top. This would work better than just adding up points because games that didn't lass long (e.g a good APC rush) would be less valuable, and I know people would change their strategies in order to go up ranks. We need to have a small amount of ranks rather than an in depth system because people will just jack off to their own sense of self worth. Hell, maybe even hide them. Don't bother letting people see; just balance the teams off of them. We need a balance between preventing stacks and stopping the game from being shit through autobalances and a lack of choice, leading to a lack of fun, and people just deciding to not play. That being said, with the amount of DotA/HoN players we have, a ranking system would probably increase playercount.
