xavi
Messages: 554,
Joined: Jun 12, 2009,
Location: California
Offline
|
|
xavi
Messages: 554,
Joined: Jun 12, 2009,
Location: California
Offline
|
Since the update 1.7.11, you can now create Team from your profile for 2, 3 or 4 players. This topic is the right place for anything related to team: From finding a partner to provide feedback or discuss new Team features coming like Random Ranked games, Leaderboards, ...
|
-= The UniWar Team =- |
|
KingShady
Messages: 4,
Joined: Feb 09, 2015,
Offline
|
|
KingShady
Messages: 4,
Joined: Feb 09, 2015,
Offline
|
YW is recruiting!
YWarriors are looking for teams of 2/4/6 players
Requirements: 100 total games
IGN:KingShady
Message me in game or respond to this for an invite
|
Team - YW (YWarriors)
YW Recruiting! Inv in game or resoond to Teams thread |
|
rwieczor84
Messages: 184,
Joined: Dec 24, 2010,
Offline
|
|
rwieczor84
Messages: 184,
Joined: Dec 24, 2010,
Offline
|
In 4 player games (2 vs 2) Kroeger at the chat said that there is a problem in turn order which is now 1 - team 1, 2,3 - team 2, 4 - team 1 with 1st player credit disadvantage.
With this turn order on small maps in tourneys it's very easy to gangup on one player and capture his base. Most depends on map and race selection so it's very random...
Solution? Let's talk about it:
1) Turn order team 1, team 2, team 1, team 2.
2) bigger maps
3) player can choose his race after tourney starts and maps are revealed
4) before teams tournaments are started maps can be discussed on forum and if some balance problem will be found map can be changed.
5) mirror games
And also we need more time on these games! It's team tournament and we need to discuss strategy on each turn. It's very hard to manage strategy within 12 hours while 8-9 hours is for sleep (work) and both players can wake up at different time. Don't forget that many good players play at one time in many tournaments with 12 hours limit. It's really hard to find time for all these games, even if you find during bussy day 15 minutes to play there is now way to play all games in all tourneys because some of these games are really heavy to your brain (you now what i mean - you need time to think on your move and plan your strategy well).
|
|
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
|
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
yeah, facing this in sneaky snakes.
|
|
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
|
waxoid
Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
|
To elaborate, team 2 currently gets compensated twice for blue's first move advantage:
(a) Blue does not earn credits on first turn
(b) Team 2 gets to move 2nd *and* 3rd, meaning the first chance to make a team double-move, so they get first crack at creating pressure and can gain space and initiative
The combination of the two is potent, as the pressure in (b) is likely to target blue's anemic starting position due to (a). The current sharp map in sneaky snakes really highlights this.
In reality, either one of these seems like reasonable compensation for blue first mover advantage on average, and I suggest team 2 shouldn't get both.
|
|
anonym551653
Messages: 112,
Joined: Apr 06, 2014,
Offline
|
|
anonym551653
Messages: 112,
Joined: Apr 06, 2014,
Offline
|
waxoid wrote:To elaborate, team 2 currently gets compensated twice for blue's first move advantage:
(a) Blue does not earn credits on first turn
(b) Team 2 gets to move 2nd *and* 3rd, meaning the first chance to make a team double-move, so they get first crack at creating pressure and can gain space and initiative
The combination of the two is potent, as the pressure in (b) is likely to target blue's anemic starting position due to (a). The current sharp map in sneaky snakes really highlights this.
In reality, either one of these seems like reasonable compensation for blue first mover advantage on average, and I suggest team 2 shouldn't get both.
I disagree to a for team matches, ffa fine. Since the advantage is small, plus blue can prepare for the attack removing b would a bad choice.
|
|
Gwalcmai
Messages: 11,
Joined: Jul 20, 2015,
Offline
|
|
Gwalcmai
Messages: 11,
Joined: Jul 20, 2015,
Offline
|
Bigface11 wrote:First off, I'm curious how far along the ranked team random games are along? I'm really looking forward to setting up ranked games with my teams! No problem if you don't know, just curious.
--Bigface
I was just wondering about this today. I checked out the forums and couldn't find any responses about it so I thought it best to post it here (since Xavi said this is the place for discussion on the team feature). Any update? Btw, really excited about this feature and appreciate the fun you guys have provided and continue to to provide.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Sep 24, 2015 19:22
|
|
GOUT
Messages: 19,
Joined: Feb 15, 2015,
Offline
|
|
GOUT
Messages: 19,
Joined: Feb 15, 2015,
Offline
|
xavi wrote:Since the update 1.7.11, you can now create Team from your profile for 2, 3 or 4 players. This topic is the right place for anything related to team: From finding a partner to provide feedback or discuss new Team features coming like Random Ranked games, Leaderboards, ...
For those of us who like team games as much or more than 1 v 1, it would be nice to have more balance to team tourney games more in line with the 'championship tourneys' or 'pro ladder'. Maybe mirror games would add too much time to team tourneys?? But perhaps a good compromise would be seeding based on your team ranking (once rated team games come back) so that the top teams would be less likely to meet in the early rounds and would more likely meet in the later rounds when mirror games are implemented.
|
|
atest
Messages: 9,
Joined: Feb 19, 2016,
Offline
|
|
atest
Messages: 9,
Joined: Feb 19, 2016,
Offline
|
Suggestions to improve team tournaments (2 player):
Player 1 moves "after his team mate player 4" and player 3 moves after his team mate (player 2). Thus it would be nice if one could choose which player is the supported (player 1 and 3) and who is the initiator (player 4 and 2)... as it is now the captain is always player 1 or 2 which is sub optimal.
For me as a khalean it makes a huge difference if I am player 1 I can snipe bases my team mate cleared for me, if I am player 2 we can't do the reverse as his marine is slow. Furthermore he has 2-3 move after attack units, so he can attack and leave room for me, I can't do the opposite. Thus we play much better when we are nr 1 and 4 than 2 and 3
I think ranked random should be random races.
think (some?) tournaments should be mirored with random races and then knock out like the regular tournaments
|
|
axispanther
Messages: 5,
Joined: Apr 20, 2016,
Offline
|
|
axispanther
Messages: 5,
Joined: Apr 20, 2016,
Offline
|
For the upcoming tourneys 2vs2, 3vs3 Im looking for a team. Im quite new to uniwar and have about 1700 points.
Gerne ein deutsches Team.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at Apr 20, 2016 10:50
|
|
nindatana
Messages: 64,
Joined: Feb 18, 2016,
Offline
|
|
nindatana
Messages: 64,
Joined: Feb 18, 2016,
Offline
|
Hello uniwarriors! I'm ready to try my hand at team play. Anyone looking for new embers?
|
|
Porphyr
Messages: 55,
Joined: Apr 26, 2016,
Offline
|
|
Porphyr
Messages: 55,
Joined: Apr 26, 2016,
Offline
|
A thought on team rating: If a new team is founded, it starts with a rating of 1500 - independent of the team member's rating.
The consequence: Our teams are frequently matched with 1500 rated teams, consisting of 2.5k+ players. They are so strong, that there is little to no chance of winning, so we instantly lose many points.
This is made worse by the fact that teams are pretty volatile: if a member leaves, the whole team is dissolved and has to be founded anew. Since most teams don't last long, there are lots of teams around 1.5k, not reflecting the actual team strength.
My proposal: Set the initial rating of a team to the average of the member's rating. This would much better relate to their strength. What do you think?
|
|
Muzzafar
Messages: 1,
Joined: Jun 27, 2016,
Offline
|
|
Muzzafar
Messages: 1,
Joined: Jun 27, 2016,
Offline
|
Looking for a team for 2x2 tournament games. Score 2111 and rising.
|
|
9055
Messages: 9,
Joined: Nov 26, 2016,
Offline
|
|
9055
Messages: 9,
Joined: Nov 26, 2016,
Offline
|
Porphyr wrote:A thought on team rating: If a new team is founded, it starts with a rating of 1500 - independent of the team member's rating.
The consequence: Our teams are frequently matched with 1500 rated teams, consisting of 2.5k+ players. They are so strong, that there is little to no chance of winning, so we instantly lose many points.
This is made worse by the fact that teams are pretty volatile: if a member leaves, the whole team is dissolved and has to be founded anew. Since most teams don't last long, there are lots of teams around 1.5k, not reflecting the actual team strength.
My proposal: Set the initial rating of a team to the average of the member's rating. This would much better relate to their strength. What do you think?
I am most active in the 4v4 multiplayer ladder, so I will focus on it. Currently there are no teams with a 1700+ score. Setting the team score to the average of player scores would make it trivial to create a team with 2500 score. If they ever lost, they could recreate their team at 2500 points again. This entirely defeats the attempt to make ratings reflect ability. It makes much more sense the way it is, with teams starting fresh all at the same score. The fact that some teams are composed of very good players is expected, and a 1500 score should ideally be just a bit below average. Therefore, a new team who looses should not be upset about their 1400s score, since it does not compare with a 1400s individual score. If you play many games, eventually your rating will become an approximate reflection of your ability (no rating is more than an approximation).
Finally, team gameplay is very different from individual gameplay, so a team with 4 high rated players is not necessarily any better or worse than a team with 4 1500s rated players. My team is an example of this, currently #8 on the ladder, we have beaten multiple teams with an average rating more than 500 points higher than ours - the difference between 1900 and 2400.
|
|
mistercreepy
Messages: 207,
Joined: May 15, 2012,
Location: Hong Kong
Offline
|
|
mistercreepy
Messages: 207,
Joined: May 15, 2012,
Location: Hong Kong
Offline
|
Well put 9055. Another point on teams is that games just take so much longer to finish so it's harder to move up the ranks quickly. But once you start to get to the top of the ladder, you start getting matched with the teams around you more often. I'm sure you could read up on the ELO system and you'd see that it takes a while for talent to truly separate.
|
|
|
|