What about a handicap system for ranked ?

You want it like capitalism who starts with more money has it easier and wins? If you want such a system plz give me heredity and everything is fine (fucked by definition). If they would introduce such things the playerbase will decrease (do not take it personally). Instead of that a better introducing in the game would get rid of the problem you mentioned.

Actually I thought it'd help the weaker player without giving him a sure win as the bonus fade away with game time. But of course I understand I can't forsee all the consequences. I know there is an handicap system that work pretty well in Go or Golf they both  give the weaker player a chance to compete. Of course a larger player base or an educationnal program like your videos or Never's for the substrate part are better solutions. But their effects are both in the future and maybe a more short term solution is called for.

I wouldn't know for sure but I imagine that even against the lower part of the legendary rank you still have a huge win rate. Wouldn't you trade maybe 10% of that win rate for 50% of more balanced games?

For me playing rts is learning possibilities at different points in time depending on what your opponent did. If you give players advantages the whole mechanic is different for both players.

You know that I am really concerned about the balance of the game but you don't balance the game you balance human+game. If you balance human+game ranked gameplay is not more needed if it is perfect.

I think we need a bigger playerbase and the problem disappear.

Well that's true, giving a bonus to one player is game changing. And shouldn't apply unless there is a necessity. Maybe there isn't, or maybe it's too complicated to program or too expensive to implement. If you have the time and interest I gladly play a custom game with a ressource bonus to see how it feels for both of us. Unfortunately the ressources bonus stay constant all game long so I'm afraid there is a level of bonus where you coudln"t win and an other where I can't win and there are very close to each other.

We can give it a try but in a few days.

Let me know whenever you're ready.

Giving a bonus to the weaker player will not help that player improve. It will just give the illusion of being able to better compete. I can't imagine how a system like this would even be worked into a ranked ladder or why it would be - it would defeat the whole purpose of a ranked ladder.

Obviously it won't make the weaker player better like I said education is the way to go here. But while the player base is small it'll allow to have more challenging games for all. It doesn't deny the ranking system. If you're willing to give it a thought you realize that it introduce unstability in the ranking system but by the end of the season when irrigularities have blurred off, the ranks will be close to what they would have been without a handicap system. Go associations have an elo system with handicapped games and better players are still ranked higher.

I understands that the top twenty players might think they have nothing to gain in that. Unless while playing between them they'll face an unfair burden. But quite often they are matched against a much weaker player because of the small player base. Then they can have a game rather than a ten minutes hurdle. It' s true that some game will be won out bonuses and not skill. It's a price it seems fair to me in the current context. 

Suggestions like this just remind me how very painfully this game needs replays. 

Honestly, I know that implementing replays on a game with this many units must pose a challenge, but without replays, people are left in relative darkness as to how to improve/what they did wrong.  It is acceptable if an rts doesn't ship with replays, but it desperately needs one within a month or 2 of launching.  Besides helping players to learn the game, it is also a great way to sort of unwind from the main game. RTS games, even ones light on micro, like Ashes, are very stressful and are famous for taxing my adrenal gland into exhaustion.  Replays are a great way to interact with a game you like , but just can't "get your nut up" to play.

In short, I think suggestions like this are a indication of the desperate need of repays this game has.

Sure replays are very needed but they won't adress the current issue. I could see a few of my own games against Das Unding and Never on their youtube channel and it is most interresting at least for myself. If you're looking for some good opening or move beside the most needed unwinding effect, go there. But I'm afraid I'll remain an average player for the game's life, even if by work I become a legendary player someday itsn't happenning before the player base grows enough for the issue to dissolve by itself.

  Like you I do miss the replays but right now I'm worried that the player retention could sink. How much people can stick to a game with a 20 or 30% win rate ?

You are right, replays won't address this issue, at least not directly....but the changes you are proposing will address the issue in a way that kind of goes around the problem and, more likely than not, will introduce new problems into the mix.  I mean, I don't know how much fun it is to best someone who is better than you when their hand is tied behind their back.

So I have noticed that most of my favorite strategy games like Company of Heroes and Sup Com/FA had a great many players in ranked who persisted in playing rank despite having atrocious win:loss ratios.  I have also noticed quite a few Ashes players with a Win:loss records like 5:82.  It's funny to me because they have played vastly more games than I have, and, If I had racked up nearly as many losses, I would have stopped playing the game ages ago. I know what I am saying is just an anecdote, but I am quite sure there is a significant portion of the ranked community that bashes it's head against a wall and shows no sign of stopping! Yes, this is a problem, but I don't think the problem is that people are going to jump ship; I think the problem is that they are boring to fight against, and that their gaming habit is more like a masochist addiction than an actual activity that shows sign of progress. Not to say that having a negative W:L record means you are terrible or anything; I do think the game could teach you it's mechanics far better than it currently does.

I think one of the problems here is that while most players can learn eco, build order, and what counter what, many will never learn the psychology that goes along with rts players.  This, as far as I can tell, is not a problem that is limited to Ashes: it's endemic to all good rts games, and to games not made by blizzard who likes to make their fanbase feel maybe a little too good.

I don't know how you can get a record like that.. this game isn't hard but from a few posts I've read and players I've played with. i often help new players and talk and show strategies to them. 

They just want a slow paced big army game, in 1v1 ranked, that isn't how you play 

As a mid level player, i think the most common pitfall I see players falling into is over prioritizing the beefing up of their resource production. Basically, they build every extractor, amplifier, and refinery they can at the first available opportunity. What they seem to be unaware of is that they are paying for long term gain with a short term loss; by upgrading your production you are not producing as many units as you could (in the short term) and if your opponent has put less into his ability to produce, he is probably putting into a stronger army than you have.  Your opponent having a stronger army is, by itself, not fatal, but if you are going to heavily build up your production capacity you should invest in pretty good intel to make sure you can position your smaller army in the best possible places to stave off massive losses.

The other problem with this is that  teching up in this way, when such a player initially gets attacked and overwhelmed, as they often do, they lose many of the structures they just invested in. So they are paying for a great many economic structures that boost production for a minute or two and then are unceremoniously blown up.  This is a bad investment.

Bottom line: building up your eco should is a decision that should be predicated on what you can defend, how quickly and easily you can defend it, and what your opponent is likely or unlikely to attack. It is not something you should do as soon as you can in every place that it is possible.

"He who defends everything defends nothing" errr maybe "he who techs up everything techs up nothing" This is also a piece of advice that I feel many Ashes players could benefit from.  Seems old Sun Tzu is still relevant in the post Singularity.

I build on average one quantum archive per game and 0 amplifiers unless the game hits 15mins..

 

That's the core of the issue. Right now very good players can be match with  much weaker player. I certainly know it because I'm regulary matchrd with legendary player and unless there is a technical glitch I loose 100% of the time. As a level 2 player I'm also matched with beginners and win those games almost always. Balanced game for average players are very rare. Now a below than average player  get matched with a large  kind of player and that a good choice because otherwise the wait time will skyrocket but his record plummet.

I understand the solution I'm suggesting comes with a price and even worse a price that can't be appraise. But I think something has to be done now to adress this issue.

The question is why does sc2 have so many players? Could ashes has so many players as well?

(There are other fascinating questions: Does dota players play the game in order to flame each other? How does a dota player feel if he plays 1vs1? Is it more satisfying to flame your opponent or your teammate?)

It bothers me that people jump into ranked play and expect to do well.

When I picked up the game I spent 20 hours single player on two maps vs AI until consistently beating "the one before last" difficulty. Then I felt like I had the necessary understanding to go MP without suffering damage to my self-esteem.

Having measures like the one proposed would break the game. It would interfere with any game sense about what production can be sustained considering regions & nodes held + what force can be expected by the opponent to field.

Sc2 and Ashes don' t adress the same needs. Sc2 is more action oriented a single  good trick well planed and executed can win the game it's harder in Ashes. Ashes is more demanding; in a balanced game you can't hope win the game in a sleight of hand. In the same time you don' t have to worry such a thing happen to you. But you know that better than me.

Obviouly there is a market for a game like Ashes. It just need a bit of time to build up. In september we will have the standalone expansion it is crucial that the player base migrates to it. I will but it's no virtue I'm a lifetime founder. I'm worrying some of the new summer players might stick with the base version is their experience turns out difficult.

On a side note If I come to a game to have a flame war it is definitly more satifying to flame my teammate. Isn't the fucking idiot suppose to help?

It would break the game when facing a weaker opponent but then you don't have a game anyway. I suppose legendary play doesn't need a handicap system in 200 or 300  elo point reach.

The sales effect is kicking in. I'm getting more balanced game. Looks like that thread was useless. This game is what I needed.