Tahj

You can use this to get an idea of when most people are online http://cncnet.org/network-status

I'm a PHP/Javascript developer in my late twenties, and I make websites and applications for Mickey Mouse.

Your ignorance on the subject is shining ever so brightly. I strongly urge you to research further. Tasks are handled async (not sync as you continue to misinform), which allows the event loop to handle and dispatch (yes) a nearly unlimited number of tasks. If you'd like more information, I'll gladly aide off thread as this has nothing to do with welcoming users to the community

You can think of the Node event loop however you'd like. I'd suggest looking up how it actually works though. hint: The Event loop doesn't wait for tasks to finish before moving on to the next (thanks to the async foundation I mentioned). https://strongloop.com/strongblog/node-js-event-loop/ PS: these are probably things one should know before trashing Node

No, but between the event loop and async foundation - Node has great advantages over PHP (as a purely synchronous language); especially when handling thousands of consecutive requests through one process. My argument here is against your, "better of sticking to PHP" statement; I'm suggesting that there's a good place for either framework and choosing the proper tool for the job should be valued over "my language is b3tt3r y0". That said, PHP was my first love Also, welcome! Perhaps, you'd be interested in contributing to the ladder

PHP does not support multi-threading (out of the box). Node's event loop == <3. Our ladder is built on Node, Mongo and Angular.

Now it's a tourney if Dan is involved! Let's get this thing rolling!!

It was WOL driven but, XWIS decided against including it as the feature was not used much at the time. I'd personally love to see WDT tour back and CnCNet certainly grants the flexibility to add it. Perhaps it's something we could entertain in the future.

Do I know you? Friday? That's fair, which is why it's not the highest of priorities. I think the idea was to enable it globally for all games currently supported; so TS would just inherit. Either way, this would all be up to Funky

We've discussed the possibility of QM down the road but, the focus is getting the ladder stable and launched for now.

Is that necessary? I feel like we have too many ladder topics as it is lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

ELO has been added (for now) on 1v1's. If you'd like to participate in ladder testing, please manually check "Ladder Test" when hosting. Everyone starts at 1500.

Yup, and all 3 of you also missed (or ignored) this reply.

What? The person at Rank #1 has considerably more wins than anyone else.

RA2 support would probably need to come first

We only plan to factor in unit counts in case of OOS or disconnect, as a means of determining which player was ahead.

Update: Looking into the usage of Microsoft's TrueSkill system for release 2, since ELO is only designed for 1v1. (Thanks @ehy!) This framework also comes with the advantage of inherit matchmaking capabilities (w00t). If we can at least get the foundation integrated, we can expand by adding other factors such as OOS and units killed/built. Also, D/C should count as a loss; and Iran just made several (awesome) changes that will help us weed out spectators and other factors for TS.

The leaderboard is open source. You're welcome to contribute. In the mean time, I do have a full time job and can only contribute when availability allows. As stated, those features will be added but until then, we're keeping it simple.

In this particular scenario, should player B not be rewarded for being more active than player A? Also, the math is pretty close here. If Player B wins the ladder at 50 points (50 losses), Player A could easily be a runner up being only 10 points behind. Overall, I think activity should also have a bearing on leaderboard position. Furthermore, we haven't even begun discussing map and player quotas or additional experience gains/losses. Once implemented, Player A could easily surpass Player B!

Why is it a dumb idea? I view points on the leaderboard as experience. Playing any match grants a small bit of experience. I don't see how this hurts anything. Also, does any of this have anything to do with the original topic at hand? I'd like to see Fog of War working as well

This is planned to happen when the tourney/ladder flag is enabled However, that feature isn't built yet. To be fair, there is currently no account auth either. So this is our attempt to get it at least up and running in the meantime. Look, we all have ideas for how the leaderboard "should work". However, we'd like to put a different spin on things here. I'm certainly open to suggestions but, if the driving argument is "it should be like this because I'm 1337" or "because it needs to work exactly how it does over there" then it'll probably fall of deaf ears. The idea is to maintain the fun environment already created by the CnCNet team; not solely promote elitest egos. Besides, if you prefer how other systems work, you could always play for rank there instead

A CnCNet Ladder.

Right now the idea is to keep it very simple: everyone in the game gets 1 point for participation; 3 points for a win. Additional (experience based) complexity will be added down the road. Why would you think that?

I see what you did there.

I've asked a few to verify unit/stats counts etc. but, as Nyerguds pointed out, this is all still very much so in testing. There's a glitch where some game data is being processed more than once (I believe due to a race condition), points are arbitrary at the moment and the ladder design is a placeholder. That said, we've made great progress and working out these final bugs will bring us closer to completion