xavi
Messages: 554,
Joined: Jun 12, 2009,
Location: California
Offline
|
|
xavi
Messages: 554,
Joined: Jun 12, 2009,
Location: California
Offline
|
We are proud to announce a highly anticipated reform to the ranking system.
We heard your complains about the unreachable and inactive elite players staying at the top. It will be a thing of the past!
No more highly ranked players resting on their past victories!
Players above 2000 and inactive for 10 days will lose up to a significant percentage of points.
Creating a ranked game with random opponent will mark a player as active.
For more fairness, ranked games will always create a 2nd 'mirror' game where races and positions are swapped.
In these times of intergalactic violence, we will bring more honesty to the ladder.
No more highly ranked players trapping others in unfair custom games.
The custom games will always be unranked.
No more ranked games vs Bots.
No more ranked games using 3 or 10 mins.
This reform focuses on rewarding active and fair players.
It is coming in a galaxy near you this August.
If it feels to you like an asteroid in the face, please write your comments on this forum.
The UniWar Team
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at Jun 05, 2016 17:47
|
|
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
|
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
Glad to hear it, this should shake up tired ranked play a lot. thanks xavi!
It seems that tournaments are using ranking for seeding as well, which is good as it gives some incentive to maintain ratings. There are a lot of very good players walking around with low scores because they don't feel like playing ranked.
feedback:
* 10 days seems pretty short to start imposing big penalties. Even 30 days for an inactive penalty would be a nice improvement over the permanent nature of current scores. I commonly take a couple of weeks off uniwar now and then. If such a break means a score reset, it may unfortunately discourage some people returning to the game (thinking their rating is ancient history anyway).
* Unfortunately independently scored mirror matches don't help much, there will still be a frustrating lottery aspect to this based on map, where it can take 10 hard fought wins to overcome one random bad assignment. A 2700 vs. 2400 player getting assigned a badly unbalanced matchup will mean 50 points (or whatever the max is) loss for the 2700 player, who then gets back 1-2 points for the mirror match (or whatever). This may sound like griping but I think psychologically it just gets tiring/less fun and many people don't bother after awhile, probably the main reason for score stagnation. (Perhaps they'll keep at it now with new policy, but maybe they'll just not want to play random ranked because it's easier to be a proud "I only play unranked and you don't know how good I am" type player, of which there are already many.)
* I still think the ideal system will apply data to determine more appropriate points to award for matches based on past performance of given races on a particular map (in roughly the score tier of the given players). In other words, if RankedMapA shows such-and-such high % of khral wins against titans, it would award correspondingly reduced points for a khral victory and enhanced points for a titan victory. But that's obviously extra data storage, coding etc.
* In tourneys the 'match' is defined by who wins in fewer rounds. That would be a great way to resolve split wins. If that is too complex for now, maybe a scoring modification would be appropriate for now: when split wins and the same race won, the points at stake are lowered, or some such.
thanks for soliciting feedback and continuing the improvements!
|
|
plingis
Messages: 17,
Joined: Jan 13, 2013,
Location: UNIWAR.UCOZ.COM
Offline
|
|
plingis
Messages: 17,
Joined: Jan 13, 2013,
Location: UNIWAR.UCOZ.COM
Offline
|
I love it!))
|
uniwar.ucoz.com |
|
il12rus
Messages: 3,
Joined: Jun 26, 2014,
Offline
|
|
il12rus
Messages: 3,
Joined: Jun 26, 2014,
Offline
|
great news!
|
|
talone
Messages: 566,
Joined: Aug 02, 2010,
Location: runiwar.ru
Offline
|
|
talone
Messages: 566,
Joined: Aug 02, 2010,
Location: runiwar.ru
Offline
|
I hope all this will indeed be realized in practice.
We waited for this for many years
|
Who loves UniWar and wants seriously study the UniWar secrets and tactics - email me |
|
Frisian
Messages: 5,
Joined: Mar 21, 2011,
Location: Northern Germany
Offline
|
|
Frisian
Messages: 5,
Joined: Mar 21, 2011,
Location: Northern Germany
Offline
|
Really a lot of good changes. Waxoid is right with the criticism of the 10 days rule, it's really short for my meaning too and
i will miss the ranked team player games. I would like itif it's still possible for the future to play custom team player games also
the rules could be changed that these custom tp-games hasn't got a effect to the time rule.
|
|
dougman4
Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline
|
|
dougman4
Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline
|
I think Waxoid's comments are important to consider:
* 10 days may need to be lengthened.
* I have been playing lots of random games lately with a second ID. The luck of the race selection for a given map outweighs skill level to a considerable extent. Losing to a much lower ranked opponent and even winning the mirror game would net a substantial loss in points. Enough to make me not care about rankings. Experienced players recognize certain maps and/or race combinations are unfavorable, and we avoid them by not joining such games. No one puts a gun to anyone's head, so "trapping" and "unfair" are not the right words in these instances. But, the new system would indeed put a gun to my head to force me to play games that may well contain unfair race combinations and cause me to lose points I wouldn't be subjugated to now (because I wouldn't play such an unfavorable matchup to begin with).
I have a couple comments of my own:
Why should it matter if I am allowed to created a custom ranked game if the system could generate an exact opposite mirror game when my game started? Wouldn't that be the same as the proposed system, yet we would get to play maps we are more interested in? Frankly, playing a reverse mirror game is what good players try to arrange anyway now to determine who is really better on a map.
By the way, in the numerous random games I've played, I only see a small portion of ranked maps and even then I tend to see a few of these over and over. BORING!! And, the maps I more frequently see are far from my favorites.
I think perhaps better is a system where rankings are not based on points but a strict ladder 1, 2 , 3, etc. Periodically, people adjacent must play each other and that moves you up or down the ladder.
Perhaps have two ratings, one the old way and one the new way. Let everyone be happy. In tournament chess, there are three rating systems used and maintained for all players.
I suggest that only a handful of "fair" maps be considered to be used for random games. I like waxoid's idea of using system statics to determine what the most balanced maps are and only use those maps for that purpose. And, perhaps only allowing race combinations on these fair maps that have been determined to have similar winning chances.
I've been with this game since early 2009, and I've played many of the top players. I have no problem that many are no longer active. Not sure why past accomplishment should be targeted as being something other than accomplishment. In tournament chess, all players maintain whatever their current ratings are for life. Should Fischer and Kasperov's rankings be removed because they no longer play? I think not! Moreover, for each player a rating floor is established below which they can not fall should they start losing their skill because their demonstrated previous accomplishment MATTERS. Chess recognizes accomplishment means something. There are some of us who regard UNIWAR as a thinking man's game. So, let's design a rating system that is no worse than chess provides.
|
|
A.Buendia
Messages: 40,
Joined: Jan 05, 2014,
Offline
|
|
A.Buendia
Messages: 40,
Joined: Jan 05, 2014,
Offline
|
That's really great news, thank you!
I think that 10 days rule is not a problem. If someone is a good player, he will get his score back. If he got it by cheating, that's fair that he lose his score. If he got it by luck and than became inactive, that's still fair, because player who play more stable deserves to get more score.
There's a "Highest rank" field in player's profile. Can you also add a "Date of highest rank" field? That would be very useful with new rules. Everybody will know, when some player had his highest rank. It's ok if it would be filled only for new highest ranks (if it's hard to get such information for past).
|
|
Pimp-pro
Messages: 4,
Joined: Mar 27, 2014,
Offline
|
|
Pimp-pro
Messages: 4,
Joined: Mar 27, 2014,
Offline
|
Good news.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Jul 23, 2014 03:00
|
|
A.Buendia
Messages: 40,
Joined: Jan 05, 2014,
Offline
|
|
A.Buendia
Messages: 40,
Joined: Jan 05, 2014,
Offline
|
And I want to add, that changes described by Xavi are really very good. I wouldn't want them to be be delayed due to minor improvements. Let's change to new ranking system, described by Xavi, as soon as possible. Then after some time discuss minor improvements.
|
|
talone
Messages: 566,
Joined: Aug 02, 2010,
Location: runiwar.ru
Offline
|
|
talone
Messages: 566,
Joined: Aug 02, 2010,
Location: runiwar.ru
Offline
|
A.Buendia wrote: That's really great news, thank you!
I think that 10 days rule is not a problem. If someone is a good player, he will get his score back. If he got it by cheating, that's fair that he lose his score. If he got it by luck and than became inactive, that's still fair, because player who play more stable deserves to get more score.
It's true! There is no problem to return the lost rating, if it is your honest rating.
Rating - a measure of skill games, this competition. Competition winner is the one who plays. If someone does not play - he can not win the competition.
Therefore, I fully support the initiative of developers. Rating should be charged only for a random game.
Now it is important to do something. A change and improve the system we can later. We are all waiting for concrete action, not talk. We wish the developers luck and determination to reform!
|
Who loves UniWar and wants seriously study the UniWar secrets and tactics - email me |
|
satares
Messages: 3,
Joined: Oct 19, 2012,
Offline
|
|
satares
Messages: 3,
Joined: Oct 19, 2012,
Offline
|
Its very good news. Now i have chance to reach second rating in this game
Its new goal for me. And i will try to play more.
|
|
olegko-by
Messages: 8,
Joined: Jun 12, 2013,
Offline
|
|
olegko-by
Messages: 8,
Joined: Jun 12, 2013,
Offline
|
Fantastic! Very, very good news! Just do it!
"10 days rule" - the best choice. Absolutely sure. Agree with A.Buendia
|
|
rwieczor84
Messages: 184,
Joined: Dec 24, 2010,
Offline
|
|
rwieczor84
Messages: 184,
Joined: Dec 24, 2010,
Offline
|
great news!
i have 2 questions:
1) How much significant % of points?
2) When I become active player (I have started random game) I am active as long as game is in progress or I should start next one in 10 days to stay active? It's very important information.
|
|
tarkus
Messages: 15,
Joined: Aug 05, 2013,
Offline
|
|
tarkus
Messages: 15,
Joined: Aug 05, 2013,
Offline
|
Perfect news!
I've only one question. If I haven't create the rating games lately, but I continue to play them, I am still an active player? I think, it should be so. There are long-term games, constantly creating new games will not work, especially during tournaments.
|
|
|
|