Profile of The_Riddler

we want coh1 ladder system with ranks!

-1

I cannot believe players still request less information over more information. If anything, the absolute rank (1-500,000) of a player should be shown, rather than a ranking class (20-1).

For instance, the skill cap between the vcoh #11 and #200 is too large to put them in the same ranking class (Level 16), as this would reveal very little information or even disinformation.

Haha, I am sorry, but somehow I am not surprised you did not get the sarcasm there.

I haven't played much since patch for various reasons, but will ramp it up soon again. Really agree on this one, the stats will be very hard to read, also it will be very hard to judge what rank is a good rank. Say a high rank player like Hans plays with 10 diffrent ppl in 2v2 regularly. And let's also assume all teams play well. They will now occupy 10 spots on the ladder. Now if each of these guys have 10 friends that 100 spots. For 10 ppl... For me who is further down the food chain I will end up with a rank that looks poor but most likely isn't. It would kind of make sense to have some "mean AT rank" that puts your own skill and rank in focus ans not the teams.

On the contrary, the stats on a combined AT rank will be extremely hard, if not impossible, to interpret as the sole purpose of an AT rank is to show how well a particular team performs, rather than how well a part of the team performs in combination with other parts of other teams.

As a result of the current AT rank system, ranks will be diluted, whereby the skill level spread between different ranks is lower. Time will tell the skill cap between the various ranks.

A solution then.

1 display the total amount of teams in each game mode somewhere.
2 display what percentile you are in of all players. If I'm ranked 20000 with playerdude65 but that's top 5%, hell! that would make me happy.

If you do n1 hen the n2 shouldn't be all that difficult either. Just maths.

This is not a solution.

Normally, an individual player or team can gain a rank by winning or not playing at all. In this proposed "solution" the following scenario might occur:

1. Player A and Player B are a team and are ranked top 1000; top 5%.
2. Player A decides to form a team with Player C.
3. Player A and Player C play a game and lose.
4. Player A and Player B do not gain a rank, but are now top 4%.
5. Player A got into a higher percentile by losing a game.

Obviously, the first 10 games should only be used to assess the rating of a new team versus teams with an AT rank (10 games or more). This way, losing to high ranked teams and non-ranked teams with top tier players will not significantly affect the future rank of a new team.

NDA withstanding, all I'll say is that I'm psyched for this game, very psyched. So much so that I don't give a fuck what the majority of naysayers such as Inverse harp on about in this thread, and haven't read 90% of it. CoH1 had no depth to its meta game at a similar stage in its life cycle but it slowly revealed itself much in the same way CoH2 is now, and it's stupid to me that a vocal minority are being absolutists incapable of giving it the time it needs to mature.

Relic are a small but dedicated dev team, you should give more time to a company that nearly got liquidated last year. They're doing wonders with patching CoH2, turning it from a sloppy mess into a blossoming competitive RTS. As incredibly varied and entertaining play in the recent Reddit 1v1 tournament has shown. The meta game is constantly changing even within the current patch, and there's a hell of a lot of change coming, as leaked patch notes have shown.

A fun game is slowly becoming a great game, and a worthy sequel. The great thing is the vocal portion of the CoH1 community that haven't given CoH2 enough of a chance are going to be rusty, and their premature opinions on its failure in its first year of release, will become a lot less relevant when they're revealed to be thoroughly mediocre CoH2 players. Then hopefully they'll spend less time whining about its short-comings, and more time playing.

-1 ^^

This post sums up your hopes for the future rather than the current state of CoH2.
Bankruptcy is no excuse for continuously ignoring the signals of CoH1 top tier players, who on the contrary of your statement, would still be top tier players if they would actually play the game, as shown by some of the early tournaments.

Additionally, you are not exactly known for your CoH insight, revealed in your analysis of the "meta game" of both CoH1 and CoH2. Quite frankly, you are possibly the worst player to ever stream a CoH game, so it would suit you to take players such as Inverse serious with respect to their opinions of the current CoH2 gameplay, as they share your hopes for the future.

Again, I am not trying to insult individual casters, but merely observe, compare and analyze the differences between casters in other games and CoH(2). Clearly, the quality/state of the game is significant, but a given nonetheless, which cannot be changed by a caster. This is why the current state of CoH2 is irrelevant for this particular observation.

So what do we observe about the majority of successful casters of other games that mainly focus on viewers/consumers in the Western world, while taking the quality/state of the game as a given?

1. "Personality";
2. Native speaker;
3. On camera;
4. Reasonable understanding of the game.

Exceptions aside, the CoH2 community has very few casters that meet all these criteria, which is unfortunate.

@FatalSaint: Aimstrong, DevM, Aljaz etc. were some of the best players without a doubt, but did not draw a large crowd (I think I spelled it right this time ) in comparison to other players who streamed with webcams and commented on their gameplay in flawless English. Nevertheless, being extremely good at a game is definately one of the most important factors that decides the success of a streamer.

P.S. in case you are still hung up on a spelling mistake, it would not hurt to know that every single author in the field of literature, science and pulp use a secondary reader and/or third party to correct spelling mistakes.