More Rank Complexity

[Verin]

I changed my name from "Zarel" to "Zarel[BDC]" once, and my stats are always near 0 since I reinstall my OS so much (unless I go copy my old 105:21 W/L stats file from its backup), and people still stuck me with a worse ally.

Well, that is a problem of people not wanting to play with you

Ouch.

[3drts]

Sometimes teams are way imbalanced, usually when a semi-noob is the host.
They will just give themselves all the good players.

You might also have some name recognition, that supercedes the rank,Zarel.
I do remember one game where someone asked you if you were a noob, thereby revealing himself as a noob despite what the rank says.

[Merowingg]

That Is why I dare to thing that more cmplex rank would at least solve the problem partly by making bigger division between ultra-noob players I will cal them begining begginers to be appropriate and super mega advanced players playing for 10 years 6 days a week..

I think three stars and three medals show not enough..

[Merowingg]

am I the only one who think the rank system should be more advanced..

[Merowingg]

Gentlemen are you really satisfied with 3 medals and 3 stars ?? would you like to be more unique.. ??

I think more advanced ranking woud encourage for game more too..

[meeso]

Ranks don't mean a thing in warzone, unless you play only with AI. At the lobby, abuse of hosting-powers (such as dropping the host prior to loosing and kicking players during the game), and also because of boundless cheating, makes it useless to cherish rankings. In a game like chess on the other hand, rankings (or ratings as we call them) mean A LOT, because they reflect perfectly and accurately how many games you have played, and how many won or lost, and of course, there is no cheating in chess.

One thing that would really help identifying the knowledge or experience of players is to know since how long they've been playing, by having them register in some sort of online server which information is shared in the lobby. Also, chatting before playing will easily reveal who is who and how to balance teams. You can ask players to rate themselves (say from 0 to 5 or more, etc.) in order to have a better game.

Finally, PLEASE be merciful with newcomers and noobs; this game deserves a lot more busy online participants and interested players in general. But because it is such a complex game, and takes time to learn, i fear that many newcomers run away as soon as they attempt to discover the enjoyment of it!

[Merowingg]

Well I dont agree that they mean nothing The ranks do mean something at least At least for some players

But indeed I didnt took into account that people botch cheat in game and fake their ranks.. I didnt think about that..

But still I think more advanced ranks and those statistics that you have mentioned woud be good idea to apply

Well newcomers often are scared at the very begining becuse the others do not help them but shout and swear at them..

Players would rate themselves 5 all the time I think only the most honest players woule estimat their real value..

[Merowingg]

Complex I want them more complex !

What about you gentlemen ??

[xepeci]

The best way to solve question about rank is to make him based on ratio.
To indicate player's skill you need three parameters "units killed/units lost", "victory/defeat", "games started/games finished". As a symbol of ratio should be used:
- skull, for ratio less than 1:1
- iron star, 1:1
- bronze, 1:2.5
- silver, 1:5
- gold, 1:10
The chevron would show the implementation of these three parameters, and it will give for a player some unique.
For parameter "games started/ games finished" should be embed options "accept defeat" to quit the game and allow to a player save his time. Also this option will track down the quitters and bad hosts.
To avoid the "over rating" when the recently played games would not change the chevron, rank should be calculated on the last 100 games played.

How is that?

[NoQ]

The best way

Why?
Currently, medals mean close to nothing, because win/loss ratio depends heavily on the choice of opponents, but stars mean a bit more, because they represent experience (a player who played 100 games at least knows the game rules ...)

[Merowingg]

Well yes it would be goot to define why you think

The best way

Currently, medals mean close to nothing, because win/loss ratio depends heavily on the choice of opponents, but stars mean a bit more, because they represent experience (a player who played 100 games at least knows the game rules ...)

I entirely agree ! stars and only stars are now the only at least good sign of someones experience..

But still in my opinion greater complexity of rank is badly needed..

Also more fetures more fun..

It is not good a pearson can get the highest rank after 24 games, or some more with quiting..

And also manipulating with rank.. omg.. how deep such people fall ??..

[Merowingg]

Any ideas heading this way or we focus only on gameplay

I think more statistics, tables, ranks would be nice

[The Overlord]

If we have to stick with the set small area for the rank and three stars + a medal/chevron/pacifier etc., I think the the top star is the only one that should be changed. I really like xepeci's idea of the ratio: "units killed:units lost."

This is a LOT better than the small number of units that you have to kill to receive the gold top star.

[Merowingg]

What about in this field? Beta 3 gives new opportunities I assume?

I have noticed that there are, and always will be, people who like statistics, badges, tables, achievements, orders, medals, ranks, and anything more.

How about trying to implement anything to the beta?

P.S.

I am fully avare all are already busy with more important stuff, I just ask, remind, suggest.

[Andrie]

I agree it is easy to get a rank What about a rank that you get if you played more 1 vs 4 and so on and then when you win you get that medal.