Suggestion: Tremulous ladder. (read first post before voting)

[liq3]

Also, Tremulous could go all XBox Live-ish and have user accounts, achievements, and point systems. Achievements ("Built 30 Overminds", "Killed 45 Enemies in One Game", "Had 50 Assists in One Game", etc.) could apply to the point ranking systems; you could have a stats ladder for kills, a separate one for assists, another for most efficient base construction (figured from kills earned by defenses constructed by one player combined with how many of that player's structures were killed in a particular game), and other almost-totally pointless ladders. Being at the head of a ladder could earn you various perks, such as invitations for tournaments, advertisements for your clan, etc. User accounts could be linked to the forum accounts, or could be entirely separate.

(If you don't wanna read everything scroll down to the dot points but read the first paragraph.)

Edit: It has come to my attention that I was not clear in my first, a trait I have I must admit. The whole goal for a ladder would be to fix the "1 vet and 10 feeders vs 6 vets and 5 campers" scenario which is happening in 95% of the games I play to a lesser or greater extent. These games are usually either extremely short, one sided for about 10-20 minutes (you know those groups of 3-4 humans that just get 50 kills?) or  end up with humans camping the whole game or camping untill SD and then dying. I find these games extremely boring. Especially the human camping ones. Now there is many ideas I've posted down below. Most of them are optional, if not all. The goal of a central server tremulous ladder would be to eliminate or greatly reduce the "1 vet and 10 feeders vs 6 vets and 5 campers" scenario in games. 'Nuff intro.

That's from another thread. I think we need something like. Much less for the reasons he stated and mainly because I find more often then not - about 90% of all games I play - the teams might both have 10 people each, but one team will have 5 'vets' and 3 newbies and 2 feeders, while the other has 4 newbie, 1 vet and 5 feeders. This means the team with 5 vets are going to win not matter what. I doubt luck could even help the other team.

The idea isn't too complicated. Have a central or server based ladder(s) that record you're damage % for aliens and credit gain for humans. Deaths needs to also be counted. With this information players could be placed to minimize the difference of team skill. I know this means players won't generally be able to chose what team they play, but for vets this doesn't really matter since all the ones I've played are good with both humans and aliens and newbies will make such a small difference they'll probably get to pick anyway. The best way to do that would probably to be to put newbies the team that higher score and put vets on the team with lower. It could also be possibly to have "preference" of either aliens or humans, which could be used if we had that time before the game starts where people can't join a team. This would mean everyone is placed when it runs out, often getting the team they want.

Also, you could use a score ladder type system, where dying reduces your score by X amount. This would greatly discourage feeding, or make sure feeders are balanced on both teams.

How much you build could also be recorded. Possibly give people the option to mark you a good or bad builder, increasing or decreasing you're builder 'rank'. This would make sure theres always at least one good builder on a team. The best builder on each team could also have the ability to control who can build and who can't. This would largely stop n00bie builders screwing up bases, and would eliminate deconners if a central server was used.

Players could be marked "deconner" by mass vote. I'd say at least 50. If this happens they aren't allowed to build. They would also have to have deconned the RC or spawns in the game they were voted "deconner". Highest ranked builder can remove this status for one game. Another options is that votes are nulled if they rebuilt the same amount of BPs they deconned in that game. or someone else vouches for them (when someone is deconning while someone else builds).

Stats older then say 8 weeks should be dropped. So possibly record 'checkpoints' once a week of what players stats are, and when they're older then 8 weeks they aren't used in team balancing or, optionally, vet servers. This would mean as players progress in skill their stats reflect it. The other option is - I highly recommend 8 weeks, it's a tried and true time limit - everyones stats are reset. Servers that want to allow only vets/newbies in could record tags once they are allowed, so you only have to get in once and you have access forever. The server could also do resets of this as well.

After a little thought just then I really haven't got much clue as to the specifics, which if people like the idea can hopefully be worked out with your help. Here's what I've thought of already.

General:
-Name registering using passwords to record stats. Either individual server or central server based.
-Players are placed on the team they'll help the most.
-The (total score/games played) could be used instead of total score for greater balance.
-Players can chose a team preference to be placed on more often.
-This would help balance teams and make games much longer, more eventful and most importantly more fun.
-Recording credit gain and damage delt (aliens) would largely elimate people who usually kill only goons/rants or lucis/bsuits from being marked as "newbie".
-Builder rank. The highest ranked builder could have the ability to control who can build. a "let everyone build" bind for emergencies.
-The ability for everyone to give "good" or "bad" points to builders.
-The ability for the highest ranked builder to relinquish that status for that game and pass it onto someone else.

Central server specific:
-A newbie server like in the other thread, where people with too low a total score would be restricted to.
-Servers could use total score to only allow vets in.
-Anti-deconner. Explained above.
-Clan ladder. This could allow some form of clan ladder with rank of clan etc based on individual players skills.

My brain just died. If people like this and it gets 'greenlighted', I'll edit this and add any ideas anyone else comes up with.

[Bizarre]

Good idea, but no.

[Survivor]

Also, Tremulous could go all XBox Live-ish and have user accounts, achievements, and point systems. Achievements ("Built 30 Overminds", "Killed 45 Enemies in One Game", "Had 50 Assists in One Game", etc.) could apply to the point ranking systems; you could have a stats ladder for kills, a separate one for assists, another for most efficient base construction (figured from kills earned by defenses constructed by one player combined with how many of that player's structures were killed in a particular game), and other almost-totally pointless ladders. Being at the head of a ladder could earn you various perks, such as invitations for tournaments, advertisements for your clan, etc. User accounts could be linked to the forum accounts, or could be entirely separate.

(If you don't wanna read everything scroll down to the dot points.)

Overcomplicating stuff and already delving into subjects we know to not be simple to express in measurable data. And we once again venture into the limitations of recognizing people over the internet. There's been plenty of discussion on that. Read up in most anticheat or central database topics. That's why it was shot down.

That's from another thread. I think we need something like. Much less for the reasons he stated and mainly because I find more often then not - about 90% of all games I play - the teams might both have 10 people each, but one team will have 5 'vets' and 3 newbies and 2 feeders, while the other has 4 newbie, 1 vet and 5 feeders. This means the team with 5 vets are going to win not matter what. I doubt luck could even help the other team.

OK, a clear problem description.

The idea isn't too complicated. Have a central or server based ladder(s) that record you're damage % for aliens and credit gain for humans. Deaths needs to also be counted. With this information players could be placed to minimize the difference of team skill. I know this means players won't generally be able to chose what team they play, but for vets this doesn't really matter since all the ones I've played are good with both humans and aliens and newbies will make such a small difference they'll probably get to pick anyway. The best way to do that would probably to be to put newbies the team that higher score and put vets on the team with lower. It could also be possibly to have "preference" of either aliens or humans, which could be used if we had that time before the game starts where people can't join a team. This would mean everyone is placed when it runs out, often getting the team they want.

The idea isn't, the underlying reasoning and its implementation are complicated. Killwhores gain more credits than builders. And it is a fact that hp for credit, the dretch is actually worth the most of all the aliens. Forcing people to join teams is simply unwanted. People play for fun. That means wanting to try something different on occasion nor being limited by reputation of being too good or bad for stuff.

Also, you could use a score ladder type system, where dying reduces your score by X amount. This would greatly discourage feeding, or make sure feeders are balanced on both teams.

Feeding has its purpose. Recollection points to "Way of the feeder" in strategies and tactics. Look for it, read it, understand it. To punish it would be foolish for on occasions, especially for base rushers, late joiners and low evos after rushes they either have no other way, or it is actually a consequence of a valid tactic.

How much you build could also be recorded. Possibly give people the option to mark you a good or bad builder, increasing or decreasing you're builder 'rank'. This would make sure theres always at least one good builder on a team. The best builder on each team could also have the ability to control who can build and who can't. This would largely stop n00bie builders screwing up bases, and would eliminate deconners if a central server was used.

Letting other people decide who's good or bad generally turns into a grudge match. And inputting limitations on what can and cannot be done is something which should be avoided, and if it must be applied, be done so with discretion.

Players could be marked "deconner" by mass vote. I'd say at least 50. If this happens they aren't allowed to build. They would also have to have deconned the RC or spawns in the game they were voted "deconner". Highest ranked builder can remove this status for one game. Another options is that votes are nulled if they rebuilt the same amount of BPs they deconned in that game. or someone else vouches for them (when someone is deconning while someone else builds).

Too many subjective observations dependent on the masses opinion of people.
On BP. Switching from 3 to 2 spawns is not necessarily bad. And the flagging is flawed in the fact that you might decon the reactor so that someone else can build it in another spot.

Stats older then say 8 weeks should be dropped. So possibly record 'checkpoints' once a week of what players stats are, and when they're older then 8 weeks they aren't used in team balancing or, optionally, vet servers. This would mean as players progress in skill their stats reflect it. The other option is - I highly recommend 8 weeks, it's a tried and true time limit - everyones stats are reset. Servers that want to allow only vets/newbies in could record tags once they are allowed, so you only have to get in once and you have access forever. The server could also do resets of this as well.

Strangely guid is already capable of this. While stats might be abused.

After a little thought just then I really haven't got much clue as to the specifics, which if people like the idea can hopefully be worked out with your help. Here's what I've thought of already.

General:
-Name registering using passwords to record stats. Either individual server or central server based.
Guids on individual servers, central has been shown to be too prone.
-Players are placed on the team they'll help the most.
Don't think that's good, you'll never learn the other team this way
-The (total score/games played) could be used instead of total score for greater balance.
Flawed as the statistical background is flawed.
-Players can chose a team preference to be placed on more often.
Possible, but what's the use.
-This would help balance teams and make games much longer, more eventful and most importantly more fun.
HOW? Balance isn't clearcut, longer is not always better, eventful seems doubtful and fun is subjective if you are forced to do stuff you might not want to do.
-Recording credit gain and damage delt (aliens) would largely elimate people who usually kill only goons/rants or lucis/bsuits from being marked as "newbie".
See the explanation earlier on in this post.
-Builder rank. The highest ranked builder could have the ability to control who can build. a "let everyone build" bind for emergencies.
Already possible, and possibly abusable.
-The ability for everyone to give "good" or "bad" points to builders.
Grudge match. You could also score high with friends or fake accounts. Too intertwined with other factors already mentioned.
-The ability for the highest ranked builder to relinquish that status for that game and pass it onto someone else.
Well, except for the strange supposition it at least helps that if the top builder doesn't want to build and protect he doesn't need to.

Central server specific:
-A newbie server like in the other thread, where people with too low a total score would be restricted to.
See everything else
-Servers could use total score to only allow vets in.
Or just guid invite.
-Anti-deconner. Explained above.
See previous
-Clan ladder. This could allow some form of clan ladder with rank of clan etc based on individual players skills.
A possible sideoccurence which has more purpose than your idea. But it already exists iirc in the form of clanbase or something. Scheduled matches count.

[Tycho]

Bad idea...
First of all: your kills depend on who you play against and what you kill. Even stats broken down to type of enemies you've killed wouldn't give accurate info but even earned credits and evoes would be still inaccurate. Reason is simple: you go to a public server visited by newbies and start killwhoreing, you go up. You play against hardcore players and your stats would fall as you cannot kill as many of them as you could do against a bazillion newbies. If you want to be accurate you'd need a ladder that counts who you killed and what's their position on the ladder. But this would be complicated and you'd still have the problem of the scores earned by killing players who aren't on the ladder.

Also if the ladder would have any effect on the actual gameplay I wouldn't even sign up for it. I don't need no ladder to tell me which side I must play because of balance issues. And I believe a lot of players would think the same...

ed.: survivor was faster and better. Oh well +1 for his post when I can give. (tho' this karma system is the same grudge match as voting to decide who is a good or bad builder)

[liq3]

Hrm I find the comments interesting so far, considering when I did a "/callvote map "tremulous needs a ladder to balance teams" ingame, in a game of about half vets, it lasted about 5 seconds before being "passed" and didnt get a single "no". I guess I didn't make it clear. THIS IS AN IDEA. I don't give a rats ass about the specifics. Make it optional, and just suggest what team people should go on. The whole point is to the fix the "1 vet and 10 feeders vs 6 vets and 5 campers". Games like that happen 95% of the time, and they aren't very fun. I'm going to edit my first post to clearly reflect that the goal is fix this balance issue that is ruining gameplay to a certain extent imo.

[cumesoft]

Central server specific:
-A newbie server like in the other thread, where people with too low a total score would be restricted to.

Basically, bad newbie players wouldn't have a chance to play again and learn, if your idea was implemented. Ideas like that would destroy a game. A game is supposed to be entertaining, not supposed to be a bank account or a job.

This makes me vote NO.

[Caveman]

All those rating ideas have the flaw that Tremulous still is a game for TEAMs.
And rating a single player does not say how good a teamplayer he is.

[Lava Croft]

All those rating ideas have the flaw that Tremulous still is a game for TEAMs.
And rating a single player does not say how good a teamplayer he is.

TEAMs are made up of individual people. Having personally tied ratings means it's easier to find out what individual people your TEAM is made up of.

To make the link to football: Bayern Munchen plays a TEAM-game, but their TEAM never gets anywhere without the skills of individual people.

[Paradox]

Halo 3 has many team games.

But if you play Team Slayer (ranked), and you are level 30, you dont get teamed up with people who are oh say, level 2!