Collapse
No announcement yet.
This topic is closed
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Page of 10
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I Need a Ladder System that Works! I Know What I Want!

    #1
    I played lots of C&C 4 like 12 hours a day for 3 months back in 2010 and I was disatisfied because the ladder system was non-existent, yet could have easily been provided for a much more fulfilling experience. This is the key! It will enhance the enjoyment immeasurably.

    So here is the plan. Treat the ladder like individual rankings but as an individual on a team of 5 unique players so those 5 players together as a team are ranked. Players can still set up 5v5 games or use automatch though automatch will be as dead as before I suspect.

    Just to show you I am the real deal, I was ranked #1 for the season on Kali for Tiberian Dawn 1995-1997 ahead of NOCHANCE. I was Bosco. I came in 3rd for the first Red Alert season, but was never a big fan of the Red Alert series because it is too cartoony so I avoided it after that. I liked the realism of C&C and Generals. And I finished #1 for the first season (some call it a pre-season) of Tiberium Wars. I came in 2nd in the first C&C 4 Gamereplays.org tournament, but after that it became exceedingly difficult to get a team together. I loved the game. It was the best C&C game ever made and as far as I am concerned the best RTS game ever made and the best computer game ever made. Base building is annoying. You have to really experience the competitive difference to know in multiplayer. I suspect they will bring base building back that crowds out the map and we will have to live with it, because players are too naive what makes awesome online multiplayer play.

    So for this ladder to work the way I want it to work, a new team would be created every time 5 unique individuals played together for the first time. You might or might not ever play on a team with the same individuals again, but that's ok. Those that drop off are out anyway. What matters is the team was formed and if they want to play together that's their choice. Naturally you will flock to those players that you have a higher ranking with and who play more often, because by osmosis your ranking tells you if you play well together or not and those players are on more high ranked teams. From this information you can determine players who belong on your team for tournament play. The problem is on a day to day basis you can't always get your team together to play during the season; it's almost hopeless to even try so this ranking method solves the problem by automating the process for rankings. You still join set up games since automatch will likely be as uneventful as before.

    Please read this again, because I have given this much thought and it really is the solution.
    Last edited by Parture; 05-23-2012, 11:04 PM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Nobody cares how good you are, your solution still sucks.

    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by Klandri View Post
      Nobody cares how good you are, your solution still sucks.
      Why do you think this solution sucks?

      Don't be belligerent and mean and a little brat, but be constructive and helpful with your words.

      I wasn't explaining how good I was for you to care how great I was but to show I am not some person coming in here randomly, but I truly love the game of C&C and Generals, have some wisdom to offer and want a really good ladder that actually works. To date, nobody has shown a better solution than the one I have offerred.

      Do you know who the father of C&C is? I bet you didn't know. His name is "Bill". If you don't know where that name comes from I can understand for it is not well known why he is the father of C&C.
      Last edited by Parture; 05-23-2012, 10:56 PM.

      Comment

      • #4
        Originally posted by Parture View Post
        Why do you think this solution sucks?
        Because the odds of having the same team again are very slim. Better would be to rate each person individually as done in 2v2 games in KW.

        Don't be belligerent and mean and a little brat, but be constructive and helpful with your words.
        I'll be constructive: STOP EDITING THE ******* WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Here is a screenshot of the history of the article. This is beyond ridiculous.

        Blah, blah, blah...
        Do I care? No.
        Last edited by Stephanovich; 06-03-2012, 01:59 AM.

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by Klandri View Post
          Because the odds of having the same team again are very slim. Better would be to rate each person individually as done in 2v2 games in KW.
          As per my suggestion, each person is rated individually in 5v5 as per their ranking in the teams they are created within in 5v5.

          Do they do this for 2v2?

          Comment

          • #6
            No, your rank depends on your wins/losses with regard to your opponents' ranks.

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by Parture View Post
              As per my suggestion, each person is rated individually in 5v5 as per their ranking in the teams they are created within in 5v5.
              That opens up the opportunity for disparity.

              Here's an example.

              Player X and his team is ranked 1. He played 10 games with 1 team and has a winning percentage of 60 percent (6 games with 1 team).
              Player Y and his teams are ranked 2-16. He played 15 games but with 15 teams with a winning percentage of 80 percent (12 games total, but at most 1 with a team).
              The obvious statline is that Player Y should be ahead of player X for a better winning percentage with more games, but Player X played more games with the same team thus is given the nod.

              Your suggestion doesn't solve the problem; it merely attempts to cover it up by having people on the ladder more. It's basically a shotgun approach in which people that don't have consistent teams will be essentially wasting game. It only serves to add more entries into the ladder but still doesn't solve the issue that wins from the same teams is how to advance in the ladder. That methodology abandons viable wins and scatters them all across the bottom of the ladder.

              My two solutions are as follows:
              -Pure individual stats regardless of team numbers or times played on the same team
              -Ability to create larger than necessary rosters in order to have players to pool from, which is essentially how many clan ladders are run
              Last edited by Harrrr; 05-23-2012, 11:58 PM.

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by Klandri View Post
                No, your rank depends on your wins/losses with regard to your opponents' ranks.
                Since these are 5 persons teams they should be ranked according to teams, but individually you can see how well you are doing by playing on a team that does well.

                Originally posted by Harrrr View Post
                That opens up the opportunity for disparity.

                Here's an example.

                Player X and his team is ranked 1. He played 10 games with 1 team and has a winning percentage of 60 percent (6 games with 1 team).
                Player Y and his teams are ranked 2-16. He played 15 games but with 15 teams with a winning percentage of 80 percent (12 games total, but at most 1 with a team).
                The obvious statline is that Player Y should be ahead of player X for a better winning percentage with more games, but Player X played more games with the same team thus is given the nod.

                Your suggestion doesn't solve the problem; it merely attempts to cover it up by having people on the ladder more.

                My two solutions are as follows:
                -Pure individual stats regardless of team numbers or times played on the same team
                -Ability to create larger than necessary rosters in order to have players to pool from, which is essentially how many clan ladders are run
                Personal winning percentage is irrelevant. It's 5v5 so teams should be ranked based on their 5 man or 5 woman team or combination thereof.

                So what happens is if you are on a team that is ranked 10th and you play a team ranked 20th then the team ranked 20th moves up if they won to say half the distance to the 10th spot, so they become 15th and the team ranked 10th remains 10th. Once a team is say within 5 slots away from another team that they beat, the lower team takes the higher team's spot so they became 10th and the team that was ranked 10th move down to 11th.

                This still works really well today on Case's Ladder. http://www.igl.net/newuser/1.html#2

                Simplicity is the best!

                When you first join you are placed in an "unranked" category on the Ladder, and you become "ranked" after winning your first Ladder match. When you defeat a higher-ranked member, you move up in rank half the distance between their rank and your own. For example, if you are ranked #50 and you defeat the #1-ranked member, then your new rank would be #25. Your rank on the Ladder does not go down if you lose a match unless your opponent is ranked DIRECTLY below you. When members ranked below you are victorious against members ranked above you, it's possible the member will jump over you in rank and you will move down one rung.

                I incorporated my own idea into it by saying instead of having to be immediately in the rung below, you only have to be within 5 ranking spots to take the above player's spot whom you beat.

                Also, you drop one rung per day if you don't play at least one game per day with someone who is below you but within 5 rungs of you to allow that person to go above you if they win. This number could be changed to 10 or 50 or 100 depending on the number of people actively on the ladder. The system at the end of the day observes if you met this condition, and if so, then you drop one rank.
                Last edited by Stephanovich; 05-24-2012, 12:58 AM.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Parture
                  Personal winning percentage is irrelevant. It's 5v5 so teams should be ranked based on their 5 man or 5 woman team or combination thereof.

                  So what happens is if you are on a team that is ranked 10th and you play a team ranked 20th then the team ranked 20th moves up if they won to say half the distance to the 10th spot, so they become 15th and the team ranked 10th remains 10th. Once a team is say within 5 slots away from another team that they beat, the lower team takes the higher team's spot so they became 10th and the team that was ranked 10th move down to 11th.

                  This still works really well today on Case's Ladder. http://www.igl.net/newuser/1.html#2

                  Simplicity is the best!

                  When you first join you are placed in an "unranked" category on the Ladder, and you become "ranked" after winning your first Ladder match. When you defeat a higher-ranked member, you move up in rank half the distance between their rank and your own. For example, if you are ranked #50 and you defeat the #1-ranked member, then your new rank would be #25. Your rank on the Ladder does not go down if you lose a match unless your opponent is ranked DIRECTLY below you. When members ranked below you are victorious against members ranked above you, it's possible the member will jump over you in rank and you will move down one rung.

                  I incorporated my own idea into it by saying instead of having to be immediately in the rung below, you only have to be within 5 ranking spots to take the above player's spot whom you beat.

                  Also, you drop one rung per day if you don't play at least one game per day of someone who is below you but within 5 runs of you. This number could be changed to 10 or 50 or 100.
                  Where does Case do 5v5 team ladders? I'm curious, as I don't seem to see it. You are still stuffing in more entrants with irrelevant wins. I also enjoy how you conveniently dodge managing a roster pool, and focusing purely on the team, like every single organized team competition does.
                  Last edited by Harrrr; 05-24-2012, 12:08 AM.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Harrrr View Post
                    Where does Case do 5v5 team ladders? I'm curious, as I don't seem to see it. You are still stuffing in more entrants with irrelevant wins. I also enjoy how you conveniently dodge managing a roster pool, and focusing purely on the team, like every single organized team competition does.
                    Why can't you do this for 5v5? Where does Case only have 1v1?

                    It's not stuffed with irrelevant teams, for those same 5 players could play again one day and often will if each player plays lots. Active players are thus rewarded and find their team of 5 players they like playing with most. The interface lets you know when your buddies are online.

                    Since this is team play of 5v5 on big maps, they should be 5v5 rankings, not individual. Let individual rankings be for 1v1 and 5v5 be ranked per team.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Parture View Post
                      Why can't you do this for 5v5? Where does Case only have 1v1?
                      Given that you used Case's team system as an example of 5v5 team rankings, I'd exepct to see where they utilized it in a 5v5 atmosphere. If not, it's irrelevant.

                      It's not stuffed with irrelevant teams, for those same 5 players could play again one day and often will if each player plays lots. Active players are thus rewarded and find their team of 5 players they like playing with most.
                      Or they could not, which makes those wins for that team irrelavent given that players can attempt to play with another 4 people they already played with. That's why there's going to be a minefield of abandoned teams left to rot regardless of the quality wins simply because you're dealing with 4 other schedules.

                      Active players are ONLY rewarded if they find a consistent team, and not because they're active. Completely different.

                      Since this is team play of 5v5 on big maps, they should be 5v5 rankings, not individual. Let individual rankings be for 1v1 and 5v5 be ranked per team.
                      Again, you're dodging the roster pool. Basketball has a roster of 15 players but is purely 5 on 5, and teams are ranked based on group performance. Since individual stats do not count, why are you avoiding discussing this system?
                      Last edited by Harrrr; 05-24-2012, 12:25 AM.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Harrrr View Post
                        Given that you used Case's team system as an example of 5v5 team rankings, I'd exepct to see where they utilized it in a 5v5 atmosphere. If not, it's irrelevant.
                        Why can't Bioware program the ranking methodology the way I suggested with my various tweaks to improve it?

                        Or they could not, which makes those wins for that team irrelavent given that players can attempt to play with another 4 people they already played with. That's why there's going to be a minefield of abandoned teams left to rot regardless of the quality wins simply because you're dealing with 4 other schedules.
                        If players aren't going to play that much on a particular team then they are ranked low as they should be. That's fine. There is nothing wrong with a minefield of abandoned teams, since they were hard to maintain anyway since players drop off, stop play, or play too rarely. They are where they belong then. The rankings thus favor active players as it should be. Nothing is worse than a team ranked high but hasn't played for two weeks and nobody can get above them because of them protecting their high ranking.

                        Active players are ONLY rewarded if they find a consistent team, and not because they're active. Completely different.
                        Active players by virtue of being active will naturally by osmosis find a more consistent team. No problem. It works perfectly.

                        Again, you're dodging the roster pool. Basketball has a roster of 15 players but is purely 5 on 5, and teams are ranked based on group performance. Since individual stats do no count, why are you avoiding discussing this system?
                        Who cares about a roster pool. It's irrelevant. Teams should be based on the success of that specific team. Period!

                        Stats don't matter. I am not avoiding discussing the system. I already described it above. Again, a 5 person team is formed when they first play together. When they beat someone above them they automatically move up half the distance to that other team's ranking. If they are say within a certain number of slots then if they win they actually move ahead of that other team. Depending on what works best that could be 5, 10, 100 rungs or ever more.

                        And when a team doesn't take on a challenge in a 24 hour period from someone within that range below them that team loses a certain number rungs at the end of the day. It is very dynamic. Very laissez faire or market economy!
                        Last edited by Parture; 05-24-2012, 12:36 AM.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Who cares about a roster pool. It's irrelevant. Teams should be based on the success of that specific team. Period!
                          So, the Chicago Bulls are not the Chicago Bulls if Michael Jordan isn't there?
                          The team is still the team if you use alternates or not. Alternates allow greater flexibility in consistently fielding a competitive team. That method as been proven time and time again inside and outside of e-sports with organized teams.

                          But just because you personally think it's irrelavent doesn't make it so.

                          And when a team doesn't take on a challenge in a 24 hour period from someone within that range below them that team loses a certain number rungs at the end of the day. It is very dynamic. Very laissez faire or market economy!
                          And that can still happen with roster pools.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Harrrr View Post
                            So, the Chicago Bulls are not the Chicago Bulls if Michael Jordan isn't there?
                            The team is still the team if you use alternates or not. Alternates allow greater flexibility in consistently fielding a competitive team. That method as been proven time and time again inside and outside of e-sports with organized teams.

                            But just because you personally think it's irrelavent doesn't make it so.
                            Online gaming is no the same thing. The hard part of multiplayer online with C&C is finding your team to begin with since people come online at all differe hours. Even with many alternates it is very difficult. To compensate the method I propose works best. There is the most flexibility in unique individual teams. That method will be proven if implemented. It will be neat seeing yourself on many ranked teams to see which players you play best with. It is a self-supported methodology. It's awesome!

                            I pray Bioware has the inspiration and ingenuity to appreciate it!
                            Last edited by Parture; 05-24-2012, 12:43 AM.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Parture View Post
                              Online gaming is no the same thing.
                              Yet there are clan ladders that do the same thing, including altenates. The 'team' is the clan.
                              There are no alternates in these teams.
                              Why can't Bioware program alternates?

                              There is the most flexibility in unique individual teams. That method will be proven if implemented.
                              Why are you still holding onto some individual when the individuals do not count, and thus are interchangeable?

                              The hard part of multiplayer online with C&C is finding your team to begin with since people come online at all differe hours
                              I disagree. If there are adequate numbers online, all you need to do is form a team. The hard part is maintaining a team.
                              Last edited by Harrrr; 05-24-2012, 12:45 AM.

                              Comment

                              1 2 3 4 10 Next
                              X