[Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent   [Hottest Topics] Hottest   [Login] Login
The art of bidding
Forum Index » General Discussion
[Avatar]
cmbaptist

Messages: 44,
Joined: Aug 20, 2015,
Location: Georgia
Offline

[Avatar]
cmbaptist

Messages: 44,
Joined: Aug 20, 2015,
Location: Georgia
Offline
Hello Uniwarriors!

I've been rolling around this idea for a while now and I am under the great impression that this would be a major help to the unbalanced map factor,as well as solve a few other issues encountered at the top tier of play.
I'll begin...

Let me introduce you to a new method of acquiring points which would allow players to put they're proverbial " money where they're mouth is, "and that system is bidding.
I propose that at the start of every match in random ranked there be 2 turns per player of bidding. Here's how it would work.
Both players would get to view the map as well as the race they were playing with, like normal. So all could be taken into account for the bidding process to begin between the two players. ( Like I said, this would only last for 2 rounds ) at the end of the 2 rounds if no agreement could me made among the 2 players, then a minimum bid of 5 points would be placed on the match. I propose a max bid of 25 points be allowed in this method of play.

This would solve a couple problems were all griping about.

1. Unfair/ unbalanced maps

If you don't like the race/ map combo you drew for that match, bid low.... On the other hand if same scenario happens and your facing someone you think you can beat, bid high. But then again this puts a "poker element" into it which again, for my strategy loving Uni brothers and sisters should fall as well received.

2. I would love to see how this would shake things up at the top.

I've seen many times in chat on multiple occasions, top players complaining about the scoring system greatly favoring the lower scored players and that there are not enough 2600+ players to make current point system fair.

I agree with them.

With the bidding system, both players would have agreed to what's at stake before the match ever starts.


I think this would be a very satisfying method for all parties who have the grit to compete in RR games.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at Apr 18, 2016 19:01


Psalms 100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Kroeger

Messages: 26,
Joined: Jun 19, 2015,
Offline

Kroeger

Messages: 26,
Joined: Jun 19, 2015,
Offline
Interesting thoughts. Xavi already has some changes planned, but I think this would be good if they don't work
[Avatar]
earth

Messages: 51,
Joined: Aug 11, 2011,
Location: UK
Offline

[Avatar]
earth

Messages: 51,
Joined: Aug 11, 2011,
Location: UK
Offline
Personally I like the concept ... currently system is broken for Solo ladder ie no incentive to play once you get a high score as all to lose and nothing to gain.

Hope something changes sooner rather than later ... I stopped playing random rated about 6 months ago.

Cheers

EARTH
[Avatar]
Mentalist

Messages: 23,
Joined: Mar 13, 2016,
Offline

[Avatar]
Mentalist

Messages: 23,
Joined: Mar 13, 2016,
Offline
I like the idea
[Avatar]
Apercent

Messages: 744,
Joined: Sep 08, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
Apercent

Messages: 744,
Joined: Sep 08, 2015,
Offline
I think it's a good idea. However, let us let players only bid 1 point on the first round. What if they get a really unfair map?
[Avatar]
cmbaptist

Messages: 44,
Joined: Aug 20, 2015,
Location: Georgia
Offline

[Avatar]
cmbaptist

Messages: 44,
Joined: Aug 20, 2015,
Location: Georgia
Offline
Well the 5 point minimum bid would still be better than current system and as minute as it would be, would still give you something worth playing. If all you want to risk is a point. I'd say just play a bot.

Psalms 100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
[Avatar]
TheDragon

Messages: 316,
Joined: Mar 07, 2015,
Location: New England, USA
Offline

[Avatar]
TheDragon

Messages: 316,
Joined: Mar 07, 2015,
Location: New England, USA
Offline
So lets say for argument I get Grunt2 against a P1 K. I know the 2 center bases are lost before the game starts, so I bid low 5. The K player knowing the game is won bids max. What's the game then set on? I'd never raise my bid nor would the gready player 1 lower his (not all players greedy just for sake of arguement, last time I came across such an imballance we peaced out and did our own map for the sake of still having a match with each other)

Does game hang as no agreed points reached. Or do we play with me risking 5 against his high bid?

...The game of life is too short to be taken seriously...

Teams (Members)
2v Dragon Cheese - (Cheese, TheDragon)
3v bawwy Kwipke - (Kelwynish, Rikb, TheDragon) Retired: Lost Socks the Abyss - (onedirtrider, TheDragon, Mentalist)
4v Plush Pinzers II (Cheese, SnakPak, TheDragon Copeab) Retired: Plush Pinzers - (Thomas K., copeab, TheDragon, Cheese)
[Avatar]
cmbaptist

Messages: 44,
Joined: Aug 20, 2015,
Location: Georgia
Offline

[Avatar]
cmbaptist

Messages: 44,
Joined: Aug 20, 2015,
Location: Georgia
Offline
What would happen with the current system? You would stand to lose a heck of a lot more than 5 points. The whole idea in random games unless I'm wrong is to overcome what are sometimes less than great conditions... The only difference would be is that you wouldn't have to risk a great deal of points where as current system gives you no say. So in the scenario you have given, the conservative thing to do would be to go through the two bidding rounds with minimum bid of 5 points (which would be the default for a disputed bid cycle anyway or anty of you will) then just play the game with little to lose but still enough to make you " try ". Make sense

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Apr 18, 2016 23:05


Psalms 100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
[Avatar]
volf

Messages: 81,
Joined: Jun 03, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
volf

Messages: 81,
Joined: Jun 03, 2015,
Offline
Very interesting idea. I like it! Would definitely add a new element to the game
[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1019,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1019,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline
I like the idea.

I think what the dragon was asking is:

If I bid 5 and my opponent bids 25 , for both rounds, what happens?

I'm assuming you would just go with the lower of the two amounts?

I think this feature makes 110% sense to implement at higher ranks. But I know it took me quite a while to be able to tell if a map was imbalanced or not. I'm sure at lower ranks this could miss the mark BADLY. so maybe this would make sense to implement at a >2000 level?
[Avatar]
cmbaptist

Messages: 44,
Joined: Aug 20, 2015,
Location: Georgia
Offline

[Avatar]
cmbaptist

Messages: 44,
Joined: Aug 20, 2015,
Location: Georgia
Offline
Yes. Disputed bid cycles would always conclude with 5 points as the wager. Regardless of how many points were on the table, to ensure that an uneasy player wouldn't be forced to lose a substantial amount of points. Where as current system gives players no option. What Duaneski suggests as far as having this apply to 2000+ players would not be a bad idea, or a simple tutorial added to campaign mode would help mitigate any issues for newcomers. Not to mention we have a VERY helpful community that seems to always be more that ready to help moderators with questions from from new players.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Apr 19, 2016 11:55


Psalms 100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
[Avatar]
cmbaptist

Messages: 44,
Joined: Aug 20, 2015,
Location: Georgia
Offline

[Avatar]
cmbaptist

Messages: 44,
Joined: Aug 20, 2015,
Location: Georgia
Offline
@The Dragon: Also the points you bring up could be solved in 1 of 2 ways. A handicap button could be placed in the bidding process that would allow one bidder to bid higher than the other in order to allow for things such as 2:1.

But the easy thing would be to just have the default of a minimum 5 point bid on a disputed bid cycle.

Psalms 100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
[Avatar]
TheDragon

Messages: 316,
Joined: Mar 07, 2015,
Location: New England, USA
Offline

[Avatar]
TheDragon

Messages: 316,
Joined: Mar 07, 2015,
Location: New England, USA
Offline
  cmbaptist wrote:@The Dragon: Also the points you bring up could be solved in 1 of 2 ways. A handicap button could be placed in the bidding process that would allow one bidder to bid higher than the other in order to allow for things such as 2:1.

But the easy thing would be to just have the default of a minimum 5 point bid on a disputed bid cycle.


Actually after thinking about it I could see differing bids being accepted. in my case above I'm willing to loose 5 on siad map, and greedy is willing to loose max. Should I actually win I gain more than if he did. Then winning/loose ratios are more to players expectations.

...The game of life is too short to be taken seriously...

Teams (Members)
2v Dragon Cheese - (Cheese, TheDragon)
3v bawwy Kwipke - (Kelwynish, Rikb, TheDragon) Retired: Lost Socks the Abyss - (onedirtrider, TheDragon, Mentalist)
4v Plush Pinzers II (Cheese, SnakPak, TheDragon Copeab) Retired: Plush Pinzers - (Thomas K., copeab, TheDragon, Cheese)
Eikonoklastes

Messages: 46,
Joined: Jan 24, 2016,
Offline

Eikonoklastes

Messages: 46,
Joined: Jan 24, 2016,
Offline
I actually like this idea, but I suspect that safeguards will need to be put in place to ensure that ToS are being followed. Admittedly, many of us behave responsibly. We may engage in a little jovial trash talk, which ties into the notion of "putting one's money where one's mouth is," but all in all we maintain a certain amount of civility. My fear is that some might try to use this system to bully or "shame" others into taking disadvantageous bets (i.e., bets that one knows to be unfair). This sort of behavior happens all the time in the real world, and it would most likely rear its ugly head if such a system were implemented. There is, of course, the possibility that my fears are ill-founded; however, given some of the more recent behavior in chat (i.e., a rise in bellicose rhetoric), I feel that the above should be taken into consideration when designing and implementing such a system.
[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1019,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1019,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline
A darned fine point Eikono. Actually, I'm near 100% sure that there would be near frequent instances of that.

It sounds like:
1) chat should be disabled during this wagering
2) there should be a ingame report feature for the chat, in the likely event there is badgering after the voting process is complete
Forum Index » General Discussion
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © - 2020-04-14 v124 - UniWar website