CoH2 LADDERS

even if the ladder isn't perfect it still gives people like me an incentive to play.

so, i'd have to say that on this issue IPK is incorrect.

Mauser wrote:

Yes steam ladders are coming.

I repeat, it is only your words, or you have a link on official proof?
Intresting, what exactly they make?

Now, we have a discussion about ranking system, but I not realy understand, what decision accept the community?
So, I put the question to a vote:
"Do we need a rating system that shows real skill level of players?"
If "Yes", then I should send this open letter to Relic.

yes relic has said that ladders are coming.

Now, we have a discussion about ranking system, but I not realy understand, what decision accept the community?
So, I put the question to a vote:
"Do we need a rating system that shows real skill level of players?"
If "Yes", then I should send this open letter to Relic.

In my opinion like in Age Of Empires 3 Elorating web Aoe 3 it should be visible, but only via web like here in coh2.org.

I repeat, it is only your words, or you have a link on official proof?
Intresting, what exactly they make?

PQ(one of the developers) said that steam ladders are coming, in a recent stream video from relic.

http://www.twitch.tv/relicentertainment/b/448794097

If I remember correctly it was in the Q&A session close to the end of the stream.

Your 2500 ranking means there are 2500 players better than you. There are lots worse than you. I think they sold like 380,0000 copies in the first quarter of sales so you do the math. your question has been answered several times over and I never got passed page 1. Forget what level 1-20 is from vCoH. That means nothing and was garbage. There would be lots of people with the same rank when some were clearly better. That was different at the higher levels but you need to be able to tell your skill level yourself and a ladder should mean little. It only means how you rank in relation to other players and 2500 means your in 2500th place in the ladder. Steam will have the same type of ladder but Valve is late in getting it done but I imagine it will be similar as Relic helped design it with CoH2.org. (I'm assuming)

The OP is wrong in his evaluation of the in game CoH2 XP system. It has nothing to do with skill and is not meant to be. It is just a way to allow for progression towards unlockable items like commanders and all that stuff. The rankings in the CoH2.org ladder is a skill level. From 1st place all the way down. His lack of understanding of the English language is the issue. (Again I'm making an assumption) If he could read what the developers have said and the forums said in his native language he would understand what people are face palming about in regards to his postings in this forum.

This. People seem to think that once CoH2.org has a ladder it's all fine and dandy, and you get abused like shit if you think otherwise. Not only is the interface unfriendly, the ladder itself is out of the way. People just don't get that hosting a ladder on a 3rd party as your sole ladder is a bad idea, and even worse, some people think developers should outsource everything to this ambiguous entity called "The Community".

The ladder is a good stop-gap for people who know it exists and for people willing to go and look it up every time they want to see themselves and willing to jump through hoops to find other people's stats, but for everyone else? Not so much.

The CoH2.org ladders are only to fill the gap Valve left when they did not finish the ladders when they promised Relic/Sega or THQ they would. This may be out of the way of the game and not everyone knows it's there but it's a temporary fix for a problem people complained about. Anyone posting on this forum should be well aware of it. Let's hope for all those non-english speaking players and people who do not use CoH2.org the ladders come soon because they are important to a lot of players who need a ladder to evaluate their skill. I think beating good players and doing well in tournaments is a better skill gauge as many people can get to the top spamming games when there are many players that can beat them lower in the ranks. It rewards activity and staying active (Due to decay) and that isn't skill it's activity.

The ladders are important to keeping player base though. People want to be able to see there name above the next guys. It all comes down to E-Peen./

I like ladders!

Your 2500 ranking means there are 2500 players better than you. There are lots worse than you. I think they sold like 380,0000 copies in the first quarter of sales so you do the math. your question has been answered several times over and I never got passed page 1. Forget what level 1-20 is from vCoH. That means nothing and was garbage. There would be lots of people with the same rank when some were clearly better. That was different at the higher levels but you need to be able to tell your skill level yourself and a ladder should mean little. It only means how you rank in relation to other players and 2500 means your in 2500th place in the ladder. Steam will have the same type of ladder but Valve is late in getting it done but I imagine it will be similar as Relic helped design it with CoH2.org. (I'm assuming)

The OP is wrong in his evaluation of the in game CoH2 XP system. It has nothing to do with skill and is not meant to be. It is just a way to allow for progression towards unlockable items like commanders and all that stuff. The rankings in the CoH2.org ladder is a skill level. From 1st place all the way down. His lack of understanding of the English language is the issue. (Again I'm making an assumption) If he could read what the developers have said and the forums said in his native language he would understand what people are face palming about in regards to his postings in this forum.

So far none of your posts, I have read, made me feel sorry for reading it. Tho, I may not agree with everything you say I do really appreciate clarity, logic and thought behind it.

Just saying

I think beating good players and doing well in tournaments is a better skill gauge as many people can get to the top spamming games when there are many players that can beat them lower in the ranks. It rewards activity and staying active (Due to decay) and that isn't skill it's activity.

While it is a good gauge of skill if you do well in tournaments, a good ladder is just as good to determine skill(if not better). Tournaments test BMT(big match temperament) and skill while under pressure. A good ladder tests true skill over time provided that enough players are competing.

You are saying players can "spam games" to climb to the top of the ladder. This is true only for lower level play and you will never be able to climb indefinitely this way unless you are also a very good player (and then you deserve it). You will climb a fair amount until you reach a plateau at a higher skill level where you should not be matched against noob players anymore(assuming enough players are online). A good elo system will result in your win/loss ratio converging to ~50% over a long period(provided that you don't get better). If you keep getting better, your win/loss will be more than 50% over a long time. Now there might be times of day when players online is not quite ideal, but the system shouldn't be changed just to accommodate this.

Why decay/seasonal-ladder-resets is neccesary(and why I hope they are implemented soon): Lets say an average player starts playing. He struggles for his first 50 games but constantly improves. After 100 games he is way better than at the start but he has to win a LOT of games to make up for the losses he took initially in the learning process(if he wants to get a good w/l ratio and ladder position). If the ladder resets, he can start with a clean sheet.

So in the end decay/ladder-reset will give players who improved a lot over the last few months a chance to actually be ranked where they belong, while also weeding out players who are inactive. This may "reward" activity, but not in an unfair way. Remember climbing the ladder while being active also requires you to win games, otherwise you will drop down in rank (so it punishes and/or rewards "activity" depending on whether you win or lose).

Just look at the sc2 league/season organization. Im not saying sc2 is the be-all and end-all, but one can't deny that they have developed a great ladder system over the last 15 years(if you include sc1), and one should learn from them.

Well,

I think that the ladders should be based @ the old Age of Empires 2's one,because is that ladder that makes the game "alive" till nowadays..

We do use a gaming site named voobly.com, and a lobby like this:



We can access everyone's ranks and profiles before playin' them, so you can get high level games, and low level games... its your choice, aaaaand it does have a "clan system", that makes the community stays together and play together with ur friends.

I think that if an 12 years old game has an active ladder, with plenty of clan based tourneys supported by the fans, Relic could do way better with CoH 2.

Sorry about my english, it is not my main language.

Thanks.

Guh.

Just look at the sc2 league/season organization. Im not saying sc2 is the be-all and end-all, but one can't deny that they have developed a great ladder system over the last 15 years(if you include sc1), and one should learn from them.

and all their work making them was undermined when they invited map hackers to their invitational event a few years ago based on ladder position.

I understand that most of the competitive player base for CoH isn't interested in taking part in tournament or league based competition and I feel like giving up since the demand isn't there.

They want an automatcher, a ladder, a place to upload replays and somewhere for banter.

That's fair enough but don't expect devs, publishers or sponsors to be clamoring over themselves hand over fist to give inject money into a scene that doesn't show any ambition beyond the in-game ladders.

IKF I think you have sort of a skewed view.

First, one reason so many more were asking for ladders rather than for tournaments is because we didn't have ladders for a while but we've had tournaments since the game came out.

Second, everyone can compete on a ladder, on their own schedule, but most people are not good enough to play past a round or two in a tournament, and tournaments force them to sign up, show up at a certain time, use anti-cheat measures, and so on.

Third, this game sucks so much that the community is really small, which goes a long way towards explaining why there aren't as many entrants in tournaments as you seem to wish there were.

Fourth, the tournaments with good prizes seem to get plenty of entrants from among the top CoH 2 players, so I'm not sure what your deal is unless you're just whining about nobody fighting in the ESL for the privilege of winning premium time on the ESL site, as if anyone wants that. I seem to recall your earlier tournament getting a fair number of entries.

Fifth I'm not even sure what your point is, there are tournaments all the time in CoH 2. WiFiDi's tournament just finished and the Semoiskiskaya tournament is coming up real soon. For a community with like 14 people in it, most of whom are banned from automatch because they're COHEXPERTSSS, that seems pretty good. Plus the ESL league is up and running, right?

and all their work making them was undermined when they invited map hackers to their invitational event a few years ago based on ladder position.

you are over stating its negative impact.
its not good... however, there are dozens of events every year... with not a single hacker in sight.

and the days of "Testie" making it to a Blizzcon based on hacking his way through WGTour are long since past.

Furthermore, when "Testie" did actually play at BLizzcon he got steam rolled and was a running joke amongst the non hackers who earned their spot at Blizzcon.

Why decay/seasonal-ladder-resets is neccesary(and why I hope they are implemented soon): Lets say an average player starts playing. He struggles for his first 50 games but constantly improves. After 100 games he is way better than at the start but he has to win a LOT of games to make up for the losses he took initially in the learning process(if he wants to get a good w/l ratio and ladder position)..

not at all, ladder position is solely based on ELO, w/l ratio has nothing to do with it.
When you play with people stronger than you and win, you get a lot of points, but if you lose you don't lose much.
Other way round when you play lower ranked players, you win just a few points but risk of losing a ton of them.
That's why you can't climb to the top if you're matched with people with lower skill all the time, you might win 10 games in a row but then in just a loss you lose all that they gave you.

The numbers aren't bad but they could be better. They would probably be better if the game was in a better state.

My point is that as a community we should try to improve our scene by not being content with what we have. Aim for something more than just an in-game ladder.

btw hello Jimmy, still can't help yourself I see.

not at all, ladder position is solely based on ELO, w/l ratio has nothing to do with it.
When you play with people stronger than you and win, you get a lot of points, but if you lose you don't lose much.
Other way round when you play lower ranked players, you win just a few points but risk of losing a ton of them.
That's why you can't climb to the top if you're matched with people with lower skill all the time, you might win 10 games in a row but then in just a loss you lose all that they gave you.

I know perfectly well how the elo system works, maybe i should re-phrase my post. Like you correctly said, Elo has nothing to do with w/l, it has to do with who you beat and who beats you. However there are some other factors here:

• Firstly w/l is important for players competing against themselves and I for one like to have a good w/l.

• Secondly, in my hypothetical example of the guy who just started playing the game (who lost a lot in the learning process). This guy will now have a bad Elo as result (and also a bad w/l for that matter). However, he learnt a lot from his mistakes and got better(with a very steep quick learning curve), and is now winning games. He will have to win an awful lot to make up for the bad elo(resulting from his earlier losses) in order to climb to the elo up to where he belongs.

Seasonal reset solves this problem, and just makes sense in general. That's why they have seasons in sc2 and also in sports in general. It's nice to have a clean sheet every now and again. Also, if you know the ladder resets every 3 months, you can experiment more with builds and dont have to worry too much about losses. If the ladder never resets you cant really experiment in automatch, or if you do experiment those losses will always be with you and you cant get rid of them.

• Secondly, in my hypothetical example of the guy who just started playing the game (who lost a lot in the learning process). This guy will now have a bad Elo as result (and also a bad w/l for that matter). However, he learnt a lot from his mistakes and got better(with a very steep quick learning curve), and is now winning games. He will have to win an awful lot to make up for the bad elo(resulting from his earlier losses) in order to climb to the elo up to where he belongs.

So in this case, low level players (like me) will be raped by high level players after each season cleaning. Till good players ranked up. Nice prospects ;-)

He will have to win an awful lot to make up for the bad elo(resulting from his earlier losses) in order to climb to the elo up to where he belongs.

not at all, he will climb up much faster than he got down.
ELO is not supposed to reset, that's the whole point of it, to get to the rank you belong it needs just a few games as opposed to other stats like w/l ratio.
That being said, we still need some form of soft ELO decay, just because the game changes a lot from patch to patch and old results should count less.