Change Proposal for the Ratings

Recent

Hottest

Forum Index » General Discussion

Author

Message

Oct 06, 2009 15:12

Subject: Change Proposal for the Ratings

kralux

Messages: 223,
Joined: Jun 01, 2009,
Location: California, USA
Offline

Dear UniWarrior,

let us know about what you think about the following change proposal for the ratings.

Currently, any player who is not logging in for 90 days will be removed from the ladder.

We are proposing to add a couple of rules to this:
1. any player playing against himself (another account created by himself) or with himself in the same game will be disqualified and banned from the ladder.

2. any inactive player (= not playing RATED game) will see its rating go back down to 1,500 over time, losing 15% of its points above 1500 per month of inactivity.

This will prevent people getting on top of the rankings and not playing anymore.

Oct 06, 2009 19:37

Subject: Re:Change Proposal for the Ratings

michelada

Messages: 5,
Joined: Sep 03, 2009,
Offline

I approve, good ideas.

I'd still like to see separation of 1 on 1 and team games as two different ranking systems since they're really entirely different games. Plus 1 on 1 is a pretty good indication of skill, where the 8 way games can be a crapshoot, since they're so often ruined by 1 player dropping out or by a few people teaming up to cheat.

Not that big a deal though. Glad you're doing something.

Oct 07, 2009 14:55

Subject: Change Proposal for the Ratings

newuser

Messages: 60,
Joined: Jun 12, 2009,
Offline

kralux wrote: 2. any inactive player (= not playing RATED game) will see its rating go back down to 1,500 over time, losing 15% of its points above 1500 per month of inactivity.

I'd like to see some sort of grace period ... people get busy or their lives change for a while but then they'd still want to pick up where they left off. Maybe the first month of inactivity won't be penalized, but each month after that will?

Oct 07, 2009 15:09

Subject: Re:Change Proposal for the Ratings

mager567

Messages: 15,
Joined: Jun 29, 2009,
Offline

would this bring the rating of people with less than a 1500 rating back up to 1500?

if you want to register a complaint, click here

Oct 14, 2009 19:11

Subject: Re:Change Proposal for the Ratings

brainiac

Messages: 88,
Joined: Jun 10, 2009,
Offline

why should a player using multis on the same team be banned from the ladder? its the same as having worked out a strategy with your teammates.
i personally have made several 2v2 games titled "brainiac vs." to let my opponents know that they are fighting the same person. Especially as my second grows closer to my main in ranking, these fights will be more fair.

Oct 16, 2009 14:40

Subject: Change Proposal for the Ratings

Hachiman

Messages: 118,
Joined: Jun 25, 2009,
Offline

1. Is a good change (though perhaps a player should be able to play on the same team as himself - if so it should be somehow indicated).

2. Is way too easy to circumvent. All you'd have to do is play one rated game on an unbalanced map (even against a bot) to keep your rating.

I suggest you have to play at least 5 rated games, against 5 different non bot opponents, on 5 different maps per month. And perhaps the rule should only apply to players rated 2000 and above.

Also, to fix the ratings the unbalanced maps need fixing (Desolate and Green Valley come to mind - both have massive first player advantages).

Oct 21, 2009 22:35

Subject: Re:Change Proposal for the Ratings

glackattack

Messages: 19,
Joined: Jul 12, 2009,
Offline

These are both good ideas. I would consider making them a little stricter as another poster suggested, maybe increasing the number of rated games or frequency they have to be played. Also, should it really take 90 days to remove a person who hasn't logged on? I mean, if they haven't logged on for even 30 days they probably aren't coming back and their rating should be re-set.

The ideal solution to the ratings problem would be requiring players to accept challenges from any other player within say 100 points in rating. I.e., a 2100 point player would have to accept challenges from players in the 2000-2100 point range. Or you could require the player to accept X number of such challenges over Y period of time, although I can see how that would get complicated.

The only hurdle is you would have to eliminate or disable for this purpose the one or two maps that are seriously unbalanced in favor of the first mover. (Why montevideo is still in the game after all this time is a mystery to me.)

I love UniWar, but the online game needs a shot in the arm. The number of open games being set up has gone way down in the last month. And flipping through the profiles of many of the top players on the ladder shows that it has been weeks since some of them logged on.

A while ago someone suggested a paid upgrade with new maps. That's a great idea.

Oct 28, 2009 18:59

Subject: Re:Change Proposal for the Ratings

kralux

Messages: 223,
Joined: Jun 01, 2009,
Location: California, USA
Offline

Actually it is not true that the number of games being set up has gone way down. It is actually at an all time high with about (14 + 12) x 10 = 260+ games available.
Remember that now it is filtered based on team/FFA and Rated vs unrated so you may be looking at only one category.

We are looking at adding new maps and also a new map editor, ...

Nov 09, 2009 20:38

Subject: Re:Change Proposal for the Ratings

The Dogalyst

Messages: 22,
Joined: Jul 13, 2009,
Offline

brainiac wrote: why should a player using multis on the same team be banned from the ladder? its the same as having worked out a strategy with your teammates.
i personally have made several 2v2 games titled "brainiac vs." to let my opponents know that they are fighting the same person. Especially as my second grows closer to my main in ranking, these fights will be more fair.

[Sorry for reposting my counter argument below from another forum, but it's relevant here.]

If you've played a team game before you know that winning largely depends on how well moves among teammates are coordinated. Coordination using chat is very difficult because it's too much work, because chats are not synchronous (you sometimes don't see a message until after you make a move, even if the message was sent first), and because often you want to make a move now that depends on whether a teammate will make a certain move... but you can't ask your teammate and know that he/she will answer before your time is up. Plus it is just damn hard to get multiple people on the same page, to agree to the same strategy. And too many players forget that it's a team win, and still play putting their own units and bases ahead of their teammates.

By playing two or more colors on the same team, you essentially get perfect team coordination. Absolutely unfair.

Nov 10, 2009 12:26

Subject: Re:Change Proposal for the Ratings

dingo

Messages: 53,
Joined: Aug 28, 2009,
Offline

The Dogalyst wrote:By playing two or more colors on the same team, you essentially get perfect team coordination. Absolutely unfair.

I believe I need to have someone explain how this is unfair when you can play alongside another player and have it be fair. As I've stated so many times before, but it seems people just ignore the fact that friends often times play games together.

Top this with the fact that the Apple and Android devices easily facilitate communication through many means, and you still have the ability to quickly communicate on a regular basis. (read: whenever you are taking turns)

With a 24 hour timer on games, it's easy for us to only play during the 8 hours we're hanging out at work and then come back the next day. On the weekends I can throw him a quick SMS and let him know what I'm thinking, or ring him up on the cell or ping him on Vent.

All of these don't break any rules, but by your definitions, we're essentially playing "unfairly."

Would I be correct in that understanding?

Nov 16, 2009 19:48

Subject: Re:Change Proposal for the Ratings

The Dogalyst

Messages: 22,
Joined: Jul 13, 2009,
Offline

dingo wrote: I believe I need to have someone explain how this is unfair when you can play alongside another player and have it be fair. As I've stated so many times before, but it seems people just ignore the fact that friends often times play games together.

You are correct that players who use instant messaging and the like can coordinate better and thus match the advantage of a single person controlling two armies. I would prefer that people didn't do that because what makes this game nice is that people can play it and do their job or their schoolwork, without devoting their lives to it. If I have to compete against people who spend tons of time, it kinda sucks. You can't make it go away, but I don't think it is very common. Following the 80/20 rule, you don't give up trying to make the game fairer just because making it 100% fair is impossible.

But your points are valid, and do cause me to think about it more. If Uniwar were to sanction a single player controlling multiple armies, then I think the rules should be as follows:

The same login must be used. This makes it is entirely transparent that a single player is playing multiple armies.

Even though you play multiple armies as a single color, when you win you are not awarded multiple point increases. Playing multiple armies shouldn't be a way quick climbs up the ladder. It should be treated as a single win or loss.

Allow challengers to also play multiple armies.

Introduce instant messaging directly in Uniwar. This will level the playing field between teams made up of strangers and teams made up of office/roommates and the like.

Should Uniwar do this? I don't know.

Forum Index » General Discussion