Coh2 Ranking

I remember when they first released 2v2at if you wanted to even be able to reach level 20 you needed a ratio of 10:1 or higher because a win would only net you 5 points and a loss netted you negative 50 points once you were at the higher levels.

I remember when they first released 2v2at if you wanted to even be able to reach level 20 you needed a ratio of 10:1 or higher because a win would only net you 5 points and a loss netted you negative 50 points once you were at the higher levels.

I still remember that + smurfs with roos.... man that sucked

The old ladder would be really nice tho! =)

TOV came after ladder got fucked up >_>

TOV came after ladder got fucked up >_>

I know, but even in 2.3-2.6 it was still extremely hard to rank up as axis in top 10 2v2 at

Dont really care about so called "competitive" play but I find ladder really fun and rewarding giving much more incentive to fight until the end for the win, so I really would like it to be implemented.

I really enjoyed COH1 ladders with ranks = army ranks, I think its a very fun idea, and would enjoy some automatch based achievement medals like "10 wins in a row in 2v2" or "tournament winner" or "reach TS level X" for example instead of those worthless achievements that we got that are plain stupid imo

I think ladders still have there place and shouldn't be omitted completely. Yeah it doesn't give as much of a definitive indication of ability such as the tournament style Ipkai discussed, but it still provides a decent approximation of ones skill.

Plus, out of everyone in the community how many people even participate in tournaments? It is generally a place for the higher skilled place, hence the number is restricted generally for somewhere between 8-64 player number pools. This is great for sorting out the 'best' but everyone else still deserves a similar form of being in that spotlight.

The ladder system gives general gauge of skill for all. Yes it isn't highly accurate, however for the masses it is good approximation none the less. It provides a sense of achievement as you move up the ladder, whether that be for personal fullfilment, bragging rights or acceptance comes down to that individual. It does obviously have the opposite effect when people lose rank and hence this often brings out the nasty side, hackers and abusive players into the game. Either way though I still think it is necessary as you would be surprised how many people play to achieve that level 16 or whatever height they set their goals.

I bet almost everyone here I felt a sense of achievement when they reached that next higher level, espeically when you get it for the first time. This sense of happiness is quickly diminished once you set your eyes on that next goal, but you feel it once you get that next goal. I think this is something everyone who challenges themselves in life will feel. No doubt it is a great asset for gaming companies to tap into and get you playing.

Also very good players will generally find there way to the top regions of the leader board, not always true but the majority of cases it will occur. Seeing these CoH icons on in-game ladders and then in tournaments and casts will definitely attract that bit more attention. I remember when I was still pretty new with the game, not that active in community forums, not streaming myself and saw Aljaz5 with his no.1 every faction stats. I was absolutely amazed and then the moment I saw his name in a youtube cast I watched the whole thing. Ladders play a part in an individuals mentality.

I think ladders still have there place and shouldn't be omitted completely. Yeah it doesn't give as much of a definitive indication of ability such as the tournament style Ipkai discussed, but it still provides a decent approximation of ones skill.

Plus, out of everyone in the community how many people even participate in tournaments? It is generally a place for the higher skilled place, hence the number is restricted generally for somewhere between 8-64 player number pools. This is great for sorting out the 'best' but everyone else still deserves a similar form of being in that spotlight.

The ladder system gives general gauge of skill for all. Yes it isn't highly accurate, however for the masses it is good approximation none the less. It provides a sense of achievement as you move up the ladder, whether that be for personal fullfilment, bragging rights or acceptance comes down to that individual. It does obviously have the opposite effect when people lose rank and hence this often brings out the nasty side, hackers and abusive players into the game. Either way though I still think it is necessary as you would be surprised how many people play to achieve that level 16 or whatever height they set their goals.

I bet almost everyone here I felt a sense of achievement when they reached that next higher level, espeically when you get it for the first time. This sense of happiness is quickly diminished once you set your eyes on that next goal, but you feel it once you get that next goal. I think this is something everyone who challenges themselves in life will feel. No doubt it is a great asset for gaming companies to tap into and get you playing.

Also very good players will generally find there way to the top regions of the leader board, not always true but the majority of cases it will occur. Seeing these CoH icons on in-game ladders and then in tournaments and casts will definitely attract that bit more attention. I remember when I was still pretty new with the game, not that active in community forums, not streaming myself and saw Aljaz5 with his no.1 every faction stats. I was absolutely amazed and then the moment I saw his name in a youtube cast I watched the whole thing. Ladders play a part in an individuals mentality.

+1

@stephenn

As a Lvl 11-12, my thoughts exactly.

You only know how good you are as you go up the levels. If you're looking for a particular number for rank, well you're wasting your time, I agree, but if you're looking for relative playing ability, well, I thought it was decent for VCoH. A Lvl 10 is still going to outmatch a Lvl 8 80% of the time. And so on.

Yes Stephenn, you are right, but ladder right now it's too much noob friendly, allowing people to climb by simply spamming games since you lose very few points when you lose a game and you gain a lot more points when you win (it's this change that caused people being able to climb multiple levels with 1 game or to get lvl16 with 12 wins, while before you needed around 40 wins to get level 8-10 ). This ladder lowered the quality of games at top level (having hundreds of lvl16 is just nonsense, especially because the high majority of them does not possess even the skills of an old lvl10), decreasing by a lot the importance of the ladder itself while increasing the one of tourneys (since people stopped taking ladder seriously)

Look at the SC2 ladder system and tell me its not important for the game...

The reason CoH's ladder sucked and meant nothing is:
1) Hacking
2) Relic refused to put it back to the original system where it actually took skill to get past lvl 10 and instead rewarded game spam. Anyone with enough time could get to lvl 16+. There was plenty of lvl 16+'s with negative ratios even!

If these two things can be fixed then the ladder is a great indicator of skill. What ladders give us that tournaments do not is spontaneous matchups and maps/positions. Every tournament was South Ango for Wehr for example whereas from the north its much more difficult and you get it plenty in automatch. At least CoH gave us the ability to look at streaks and win/loss ratios and based upon that you can determine pretty easily someone's skill level. At CoH2 launch you get to look at their list of medals lol. Relic shouldnt even consider launching the game until these systems are in place. Just extend beta and actually finish the game. I personally wont pay 100% of the price for 60% of the game.

Yes Stephenn, you are right, but ladder right now it's too much noob friendly, allowing people to climb by simply spamming games since you lose very few points when you lose a game and you gain a lot more points when you win (it's this change that caused people being able to climb multiple levels with 1 game or to get lvl16 with 12 wins, while before you needed around 40 wins to get level 8-10 ). This ladder lowered the quality of games at top level (having hundreds of lvl16 is just nonsense, especially because the high majority of them does not possess even the skills of an old lvl10), decreasing by a lot the importance of the ladder itself while increasing the one of tourneys (since people stopped taking ladder seriously)

Downplaying the importance of the ladder because the system implemented is shit is the wrong approach. They just need to fix the damn rating system, its not hard, they just didnt want to offend the noobs. The ultimate problem is Relic's ranking system, not the ladder itself.

I still remember that + smurfs with roos.... man that sucked

Best days of my life MVGame

If you are not taking part in tournaments then ladders are often an accurate way to determine your skill level. Not only that but it drives personal motivation with promise of progression. Having a flawed ladder system is not an excuse to remove it but improve it.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no debate about whether CoH2 should or should not have a ladder and Quinn just said it's coming back in the future anyway. The real warning signal for me is why aren't things like this and other competitive aspects of the game 100% ready by launch and why is the current vCoH online system so poor.

SC2 HOTS has it right. They have a rank up system with cosmetic rewards where you rank up simply for playing the game. Levels 1-90.

On top of that you also have the ladders Bronze, Silver, Gold, Plat, Diamond, Masters, GM for 1v1 - 4v4

Very polished setup and I wouldn't expect relic to have the time or resources for anything similar (also replay system etc etc)

What Sepha said is spot on, imho. I agree that ladders are not necessarily essential, but I think some sort of system, for people to keep track of how they are doing in comparison to the competition, is needed. Ipkaifung brings very valid points, and I think that ladders are not a perfect system either, but they are a traditional system.

For competitive players, the ladder is a BIG part of the game, but Im going to go ahead and assume that finishing up the single player experience, polishing through beta, etc, are far more important than the ladder system.

Delaying the game could have big consequences on the success of the game, even if the product is better.

Rank system is necessary.

but, some changes are necessary.

If you are not taking part in tournaments then ladders are often an accurate way to determine your skill level. Not only that but it drives personal motivation with promise of progression. Having a flawed ladder system is not an excuse to remove it but improve it.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no debate about whether CoH2 should or should not have a ladder and Quinn just said it's coming back in the future anyway. The real warning signal for me is why aren't things like this and other competitive aspects of the game 100% ready by launch and why is the current vCoH online system so poor.

+1

The real warning signal for me is why aren't things like this and other competitive aspects of the game 100% ready by launch and why is the current vCoH online system so poor.

i thought you spoke with Quinn personally?
even from the very first interviews after coh2 was announced you could already read in between the lines that the competitive scene was an afterthought at best, and completely left out of the loop at worst.
CoH2 has proven time and time again now that it doesn't care for "us", but mainly for compstompers and basic matchers.
compstompers and basic matchers dont care about ladder/replays etc. working, all they need is a lobby (or maybe an annihilate automatcher) to start games.

To launch with this list looming over the game is a tragedy.

No ladders
No chat lobby
No match history
No obs mode
No anti-cheat
No fixed positions for tournaments
No good maps

Yeah, what the hell is Relic thinking?
Leaving out such features at launch will definitely impact reviews, which, let's face it, are hugely important in determining sales.

It would be prudent of Sega to delay the game just for this features to be implemented at launch.

I'm starting to wonder how this game would have looked like, had it been released in march... With all this extra time given and they're not even half-way there when it comes to multiplayer *sigh*