A ranking system is probably dumb, but I've said like 100x that the easiest, simplest, most accurate and ungrindable system you're going to get is to measure it purely by time played. 0-10 hours = 0.5 player 10-100 = 1 player 100-1000 = 1.5 player 1000+ = 2 player It's not perfect but it's straightforward and won't cause any dick comparison competitions. In relation to a point earlier in the thread regarding game length, I noticed the games becoming shorter sometimes, though I can't say I saw it to the same extent that Ikalx did. The game has felt really easy to win this last couple of weeks, even without ninjaing and stuff. You can take areas of a map as your own territory, and it just seems like my team never has to fight to keep it, no-one ever contests it. It's like, "oh we lost Dam, well I guess Dam is gone for the rest of the game". I'm reluctant to start looking into actual gameplay setups yet, but we'll see how games play out once the new commander coordination tools are added in, because I really think they'll be a gamechanger.
Just for reference, I have over 900 hours in Empires. Ikalx just breached 100. Fooshi is at 630~. Z10000M's at 350~, so is flasche. Whamo has 3k, JGF has 2k, Spartacus has 1k. Hell, Nihia has slightly less hour than me. NIHIA.
ahhh the futureeee "justgofly and whamo get the fuck off my team i want communism, hastche, and two other vets on my team" sogood
That's for Steampires only but you can't track modpires since there is only the Source SDK Base 2007 counter which includes all mods. With that, though, I'm sure all vets would be way above 1k.
Lol. You know the funny thing is, when I started playing Empires we could have a single map go for as long as 4-6 hours. One Map. Actually that's part of the reason tickets were introduced, tbh.
Played some last night - mostly newbie training. I had four nubs on my team and they were actually making headway, but we had +2 players. Two on the other team were vets, so I felt 5 vs 3 was somewhat fair at least until one other person joined. 3 vets joined and immediately exploited the hill on Slaughtered, or maybe Heisen wasn't shitting me and they just walked past our array of upgraded turrets and spawned at our base. The inevitable happened and we quickly lost. The nubs kept chasing butterflys. So next two matches I ended the game within 2 minutes. I put a couple guys in a jeep - we rushed their main and destroyed everything and killed everyone. Shitty games and point made. Next few games turned out to be much better. Well Heisen left -so that is always better. I spent time training new players and had one six month guy jump in the com on Streets of Fire. Some guys love to do a quick rush and end the game quickly then say how great they are. ANYONE CAN DO THAT - it takes very little talent to win that way. I rarely pull that shit on opponents. The guy who played COM realized it takes some time to learn what to do, even when being wet nursed. Another nub learned the very basics. Hopefully they will be back. I may have to perpetually play like the guys claiming to be great players so I can join that rank of asshole vets. Maybe destroy the game every night for everyone else - but that doesn't really matter does it?
The thing is...it never used to be that easy to do. We had versions where things were overpowered like apc's etc, but it just seems a whole lot easier to win in a quick way...and I don't really understand it. Even when people aren't being squad-ridiculous and ninja'ing the CV, it still ends pretty quickly.
16 mines + 1 mortar +1 RPG on side armor used to be able to take out the CV. From my point of view, it has always been constantly easy. It doesn't require much talent or skills, JGF is right, you only need a little experience and of course, your friends. He means that you played the game a lot yet you are still totally average.
This attitude sickens me. In playing well and attempting to win with as few setbacks as possible you are not being an 'asshole vet'. Quite the opposite, if you play in that manner, you are boon to the community and the mod. To do otherwise is to foster shallow and boring game-play. The way empiresmod is meant to be played is strategically and ruthlessly. It is not a sandbox tdm with arbitrary constraints on competitive gameplay. Quite the opposite, being competitive is encouraged and even necessary for games to be fun. Competition starts with giving your all and if that means taking out the enemy CV, so be it.
I want to bring this back after that one game on emp_coast. The entire game, the team I was commanding had the upper hand - I'm not sure about skillstacks, it may not have been 100% even as I had some pretty good players in that 7v7 - and slowly pushed the enemy....until a bunch of vets decided to join NF and make an APC A couple newbies left NF at that point (like one or two), which made space for the veterans to come in. They rolled an APC, rammed it into the CV, and won the game in 30 seconds. Now I'm definitely butthurt here, but is this really the kind of gameplay that we should strive towards? It surely feels nice for those who did that and succeded, and theo thers on the winning team might feel nice, but I for one feel really bad now, and I imagine the others that were with me too (probably less bad though). I'll be the first to admit that I didn't have turrets up at that point ( they literally ran in when I was building a bunch of them), so feel free to judge me all you want. The one thing I learned though is that I won't command again for a good while as the risk of that doesn't payoff, I'd rather just lose outright to no commanders - less effort same effect. Also turrets come down sooner. /rant
I just realized I used 'quite the opposite' twice in that post. JGF is just so misguided it's making my mind blow up.
