Rank Reform

Recent

Hottest

Forum Index » What's New in the Latest Updates
◄ 1 2 3 4 5 ► Go Go to page...

Author

Message

Jul 26, 2014 22:49

Subject: Rank Reform

dougman4

Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline

There's a joke that goes even in this age of space age materials, that if you simply described the properties of stainless steel then you'd be lauded a hero for making such a revolutionary discovery. I fear were we to implement the proposed rating system, that we'd yearn for the freedom of being able to create rated individual or multiplayer games on whatever maps we wished with whatever players and races we wished. This seems a step backward, for now we have freedom. I'm perplexed at the continued use of terms such as unfairness or being trapped or tricked for the current system. Since when did needing to be discerning constitute unfairness or crisis? Life in general requires a basic level of due diligence. No one is trapped or tricked in UNIWAR for sure, for you have to join a game for it to start. You shouldn't join a rated game against a higher rated player expecting to win, and is not the higher rated player's fault. You shouldn't play a rated game on a map you haven't experience on either, and expect to win. You play friendly games on the map first, both as first player and second player and with a variety or races. You decide whether turn order is fair, whether money is fair, whether race combinations are fair - for sometimes any of these reasons alone can provide a significant advantage and are separate issues from the current Elo rating system which works precisely as it should.

I'd first like to suggest that the developers ought to keep the old rating system intact, and overlay a new one, keeping both operating independently. As the current system is already in place, and works well, there's no need to junk it. There are plenty of people who like it, and might prefer it to the new one. Then I would have no further comments and everyone could coexist happily. Have both rating systems active, or let players opt for whichever they wish. Heck, have a Super Bowl tournament between the top players of each system at the end of each year. I'm also content if the current Elo rating system is continued and deemed unofficial and the proposed system is considered official. At least I can still play how I wish.

But, if you don't allow me to continue to operate as I have been under the current rating system - then I have serious concerns and you'll forgive me for continuing to explore options...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at Jul 28, 2014 13:58

Jul 26, 2014 23:08

Subject: Rank Reform

dougman4

Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline

These are my additional thoughts:

The proposed system seems to mimic the system used to adjudicate the tournaments. Frankly, it was fun to have a different system for the tournaments. But, the tournament system is a bit ponderous for everyday use with the mirrored game and tiebreaker system.

In tournament games between evenly matched players, the outcome largely hinges on the number of turns a map is won by. Most boards have race combination advantages, and evenly matched players will tend to split tournament games and come down to the tie breaker. I realize a tie breaker methodology is tough to decide upon, but I prefer solid chess style play where I press a small tactical advantage into a inevitable passed pawn type endgame. This is slow but frequently the surest way to victory. It seems odd that in a thinking game we'd force players into risky gambits and atypical game play for fear of the tiebreaker. I'd suggest the percentage of killed and lost units value as being as valuable as a tiebreaker metric. Perhaps averaging several such metrics together for the tiebreaker is best. Already, we've seen boats (which have a slower development methodology) being overlooked in favor of air. And, frequently, only a few turns in it becomes obvious which player has the time advantage among the games and playing the games out becomes uninteresting. Certainly, now why we started playing UNIWAR! It would be far more interesting if several metrics averaged determined the overall winner and kept both players fighting hard until the end and allowed for some suspense and chance for victory even if one player's development was lagging.

If the old system could be gamed, why not just fix how it was commonly gamed? Remove the options for time controls less than 12 or 24 hours for rated games. Remove the ability to create multiple simultaneous and identical games. Remove the ability to gain any points from a win against a much lower player. Or, bar the ability for players ranked more than 200 points (or whatever amount is best) apart to play rated games against each other. Problems were never between experienced players, who already were aware of these concerns. And, even though experienced/highly ranked players might be able to make easy work of a much lower ranked player on many maps - the gain was so little (a few points) that it wasn't much worthwhile for the experienced player and didn't discernibly harm the lower ranked player. So, not much of a problem in my mind to begin with but if we wanted to stop this from happening it would be easy to do so from my suggestions at the beginning of this paragraph.

I want to play rated team games, and have those outcomes be reflected in my normal ID ranking just as they are now. I don't want to have team rated play be relegated to tournaments and ladders. I also don't want team play rankings to hinge on a particular choice of teammate(s). Players come and go, take time off, and relationships naturally wax and wane. I don't want to be tied to anyone else and have the freedom to play with whomever I like whenever I like and have the rated team results be blended with my normal single player results - as they are now. My fall back position from this, would be to have to have a separate team rating maintained (in addition to the the current rating system and the proposed one for single play). But, even in this case I wish to be able to team with anyone at anytime.

The maps used for the proposed system in my mind should only be comprised of the original built in maps (at least for 1 vs 1 play). I find it frustrating that the classic maps are NEVER selected in my experience for rated random games. And, none of the maps selected for rated random games are as good as the classic built in maps. The best of these built in maps in my mind are Starvation, Laugua Niguel, Chato Hill, WildPlains, Desolate, and Gold Rush. The next tier would include Great Wall, Montevideo, Scramble, Forest Walk, and Dead Monk. The other built in 1 v 1 maps I wouldn't suggest be included for rated play (you could maybe twist my arm for Piriapolis to be in too).

I think that in the proposed system, that if a higher rated player splits with a lower rated player but wins the tiebreaker - the system MUST NOT AWARD ASSIGN A NET LOSS OF RATING POINTS TO THE HIGHER RANKED PLAYER BETWEEN THE TWO GAMES. If it does, I simply will not wish to participate for obvious reasons (the higher ranked player won after all, and should not be penalized for winning).

Jul 27, 2014 00:36

Subject: Re:Rank Reform

simsverd

Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline

Some interesting points dougman.. Though i dont agree on all your conclusions.

I am sure that points will be awarded on basis of both mirror games as one victory, not 2 separate.

I agree that there should be possible to play for points in teamgames also and as i earlier mentioned, not only duo or fixed teams. However, i disagree that single games skill score can be boosted by playing teamgames. Its to easy to "piggyback" better players in teamgames with current implementation... Therefore a teamladder would be better.

Write a longer replay later when i get home from vacation and able to write from a computer..

Moderator of gamechat and forum. Tourney admin.

Send me a PM here or invite me to a game if you want to ask me something, suggest a map for tourney or just wanna play a game

Jul 27, 2014 19:02

Subject: Re:Rank Reform

curmudgeon

Messages: 27,
Joined: Jul 23, 2010,
Offline

I would like to start this by saying that I have been playing Uniwar non-stop for over 4 years now. I only paid $0.99 for this and I actually feel like I owe Uniwar more money for the entrainment it has provided me. I support ideas which will help drive income to support the servers, development, and to make it profitable for the owners for years to come: As long as these ideas maintain the integrity of the game. I however do not support the long-term and short-term proposals for changes in the rules, including the ones to purchase move restarts and a more aggressive/fanatical ladder system. I believe that the new ladder proposal is designed specifically to increase sales of move restarts when they are rolled out and has nothing to do with a relevant ranking system like they claim. The most likely source of these resets will not be the best players, who are typically adults with busy lives, which play few games and would not pay for restarts, but the mediocre teenagers- early adults who play more games, believe that their Uniwar ranking is the most importing thing in their lives, and who will purchase an untold amount of restarts if they think it will help them get into the “Top 50” of Uniwar. I put the Top 50 in parenthesis because I believe that the best players will continue to lose points by not playing the boring random game system and the “Top 50” will be filled by those who are actually 2100 players at best. I also do not find it surprising that players who stand to make a profit from tutoring the same mediocre players have shown their support for this format.

The reason why the best stop playing rated games/ stop playing Uniwar completely is because the race bias on almost every map has a weight of about 10-fold more than the skill level on the outcome of the games. Random games are boring because it is just like flipping a coin and starting a game is a guaranteed loss as well. The thought of playing random game mirror matches makes me shutter. If these matches are played by 2 people of any skill the outcome will be 1 win and 1 loss for about 99% of the matches. Not only is this horrifically boring, but will exaggerate the frustrations of anyone who begins to reach the top of the ladder; I suspect the rate of attrition will only increase for the skilled players.

The only salvation for Uniwar is to have the users and/or developers generate maps which minimize the effects of the race bias and maximize the effect of skill level on the outcome of the game. If we had an abundance of these maps, then starting a rated game on them would be as fair as starting a random game for all parties involved. No mirror match required. Recently, I have been spending the few free moments of my day, to develop maps which minimize the race bias. I am doing this completely because I feel that I have to give back in some manner. I think I have one 2 player game and one 4 player game which do not have a race bias. I do not see why as a community, we cannot generate many more. I would like to see Uniwar make more of an effort to look at what makes a map fair and reach out to users to generate more. I don’t see why we can’t base a ladder around maps like that. Unless of course, there is no money in it…

Jul 27, 2014 20:34

Subject: Re:Rank Reform

Mantis Lord

Messages: 50,
Joined: Jan 24, 2014,
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Offline

Many great thoughts all around. Glad to see the community coming together for this.
There is a lot to keep track of though. Personally, I like bullet points, and will try to keep my ideas succinct.

First off, I think focusing primarily on changing the rating system is a mistake right now. The game has bigger issues!
- Poorly race-balanced rated maps are the biggest problem in the game right now.
- That is why I do not play rated random 1v1. It is a joke, cannot be taken seriously. No one likes being dealt a losing hand to start the game!
- SOLUTION: please just give us a random map in rated 1v1 that we can see, let us pick our own races, BUT don't let the other player see the race their opponent picked! >>>Problem solved.
- Mirrored games are a crutch, and a bad one, that attempt to fix the problem above.
- This results in a balloon-swelling/bloat of the time required to play this game (if mirror becomes standard).
- That is fun and fine in a tournament, but in most club chess, playing and winning 1 chess game is quite a normal occurrence without requiring the mirror match. Please fix the root cause of the problem instead (starting with above proposal).

The above suggestion is part of the whole solution. The other part is the way maps become rated, then the 3rd part is the player rating system itself.

- I suggest making all maps unrated except the defaults, and starting the rated-map selection process fresh as the developers have recently described.
- It makes sense that long time / solid players might have a broader understanding of a map's merits and therefore have more voting power than a fresh account should.
- I think a map becoming rated should be a big event, and thus should be announced with fanfare on the uniwar website when it is added. Maybe with an overview and a few tips on how to play it.
- It is not easy to create a balanced map that will make it to this level, reiterating the above. There should be more detailed suggestions/guidelines on how to make balanced maps for newer players.
- All mechanisms behind what makes a map rated should be transparent.
- (Maybe there is a way to automate a post to forum about a map that is about to become rated, where discussion can take place and then a final vote)

(1 of 3)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Jul 27, 2014 21:01

How does a helicopter catch the flu, exactly?

Jul 27, 2014 21:01

Subject: Re:Rank Reform

Mantis Lord

Messages: 50,
Joined: Jan 24, 2014,
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Offline

The rating system we have now is decent. The big reason to change it is to remove cheaters, and add incentives for more frequent ranked play overall. But even a few simple changes, combined with focus on the previous *more significant issues*, will get us to where we want to be.

- Please remove/ban/block the KNOWN cheaters? I feel like we all know who they are, I don't know why we cannot just address those people in the open. Or is that not possible? Apologies if I missed that explanation.
- Please remove any time control below 12 hours for ranked matches, (or even altogether) <<< I know this is in the proposal and that's great!
- ^ Also good was the suggestion to start the game timer upon the 2nd player accepting a game (in 1v1).
- I like requiring continued Random Ranked play to maintain rank, to some extent. Please pick a more realistic mechanism though.
- 10 days is an arbitrary amount of time used by no one. Pick 2 or 3 weeks instead please (I prefer 3).
- Starting a game every X time is still clunky. What if you are capped for games? High-end games can be very long and intense, they will stack up quickly.
- And does getting randomly matched, but not being the 'game starter', count for activity?
^^^Combined with blind-to-opponent race selection in randoms, re-booting the rated map pool, and focusing on race-balanced map acceptance system, we will have a GREAT system!

I saved most important for last. Let us define Uniwar, so we can understand our priorities. I see it as the combination of all the ways people play the game. Hence:
1v1 + Team + AI = Uniwar

- I will posit that not many people care about the AI. It is nice to have, and a much stronger AI would be nice, but I think most people like to play with/against other people.
- Unless developers have stats to show that 1v1 play >>> Team Play, I think both types of play should be treated EQUALLY.
- Even then, if developers want to focus on one type more than the other, they WILL lose a MAJOR portion of the player base. Just a heads-up. I will happily quit if ranked team play is not continued.

(2 of 3)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Jul 27, 2014 21:21

How does a helicopter catch the flu, exactly?

Jul 27, 2014 21:20

Subject: Re:Rank Reform

Mantis Lord

Messages: 50,
Joined: Jan 24, 2014,
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Offline

So in summary: changing ranking system alone does not improve the actual gameplay experience. As currently proposed, the rank changes will result in (bad things):

- Lots of upset Team Players. Do not count on them to 'wait around' for team play to get the same treatment as 1v1.
- (Getting locked in to a fixed 2 player team is not realistic either btw).
- Players being forced to play twice as many games as normal (if mirror req) because of poor-race balanced maps and race choosing mechanisms
- A meltdown of the validity of the ranking system, if 10 days is kept.
^ People will realize how short and ridiculous that is on their first vacation, lose a big chunk of points, then stop caring about ranking altogether. That's my prediction!

ALSO, keep rated bot games for low rated players!! They should be rewarded for learning! Keep it for them up to rating...1800? Then turn it off.

I mean, ask yourself, will you suddenly have MORE FUN playing Uniwar with the first pass of rank changes? I know I won't!
But then ask yourself, would you suddenly have MORE FUN playing if core gameplay was improved, ie what I and many have suggested in the posts here? I sure would!!

I love you guys devs, this is one of my very favorite games. I always try to get more people playing it.

I think it is upsetting some of the fanbase though that the real issues with the game feel like they're being ignored. The rank changes are just a band-aid - we need stitches instead.

(Let alone other huge core gameplay improvements we're dying for, like new units, a new race, new terrain, and a game-playback / spectator feature!!!)

(3 of 3)

How does a helicopter catch the flu, exactly?

Jul 27, 2014 23:27

Subject: Re:Rank Reform

StarryBlink

Messages: 184,
Joined: Jan 04, 2012,
Offline

I generally agree with the ranking reform.
It should provide more hope for me to step-up the ladder
when many inactive high-ranked players have to play and spend their score back to the system.

Just one comment. How will you deal with random boring matches ?
For example playing as sap vs titan in maps like thermophyllae or jungle.
You may use a mirror game system to fix its unfairness.
But the thing I care much more than my rating is * my time *
Why I have to spend my time playing the two boring mirror games
which I already know the result since the game start ?

I think most gamers are like me
who like to spend their time playing a game since it's fun.
Not because the game give them the rating.

Jul 27, 2014 23:41

Subject: Rank Reform

dougman4

Messages: 41,
Joined: Jun 19, 2009,
Offline

I'm impressed with the outpouring of constructive thoughts and ideas, many of which I thought "Oh Yes, that too!" and wish I had said myself. I notice that more seasoned players play a higher proportion of team games. In fact, almost exclusively so. So, I think any changes that adversely affect team play will be difficult to swallow. I'm not much interested in 1 v 1 anymore, and if I can't play an occasional ranked team game when I wish for an adrenaline rush - then you've removed the one high I depend on.

I think for many of us, UNIWAR is a small vice we allow ourselves that gives us a wondrous 10 minute distraction here and there throughout the day. I, too, and very conscious I paid little for this app that has hosted hundreds of my games and made incremental improvements through the years at no additional cost. I searched my email and found my receipt. $2.99 on iTunes on April 28, 2009. Considering the time I've spent and entertainment I've received from this game, it's one of the best investments of my life. I only started playing team games over the last year, and found (a) that's the game's greatest strength and (b) there are many wonderful people out there playing that's been my pleasure to become acquainted with. Ha, I'd travel to meet you in a convention sometime!

I've ideas for solving the inevitable map race advantageous. I think it is difficult to design an interesting map that is equal to all races. Each race has different strengths, favoring different terrain, so how is it even possible to design a fair map to all races? I've been working on a half dozen maps for a year, and I can't figure out how to be equally fair. So, I've come to the conclusion that the secret is you don't even try. Instead you do one of the following:

1. Tweak the starting money per race ( or perhaps the money per base per round) to erase the advantage. I foresee where the developers could automatically or periodically have the map win/loss stats by race reviewed and give help to the losing race(s) to erase the advantage. Have it perpetually adjust, always fine tuning as strategies evolve or if the help was too much or not enough.

2. THIS IS MY HOLY GRAIL AND WHERE I'D SPEND MONEY ON AN APP UPGRADE: Give us the ability to customize all variables and create new units. Say, I'm creating a map with clear terrain and need to give help to the Khraleans. Or, I want to start a game on a map where I think the Titans are at a disadvantage on. Let me set the attack/defense stat values to whatever I like - for all units. Let me also set movement to whatever I like and so on for all stats. I should think the developers would find this liberating. Why do you want to listen to us bellyache? You are in an impossible situation. Your code already has these variables imbedded, all you need to do is let us set the values ourselves. Give us the ability to add units too. Say I wanted another air unit for Khrals that I wanted to call the Super Swarmer. Let me do it. Give us a menu of special abilities to choose from to outfit our new units with too. Over time, the UNIWAR community will come up with some interesting new units that everyone agrees ought to be part of the default set. This doesn't mean the classic units and their originally assigned values disappear, or that they aren't the default set for rated games and tournaments. But, I'd bet many would find this refreshing. And, it would give map makers a chance to tweak their creations to be balanced to begin with - and others an chance to further tweak if they don't happen to agree. Everyone can be happy!

I'd like to begin brainstorming a list of additional special abilities that could be selected from in creating new units. My personal wish list would include:

Overrun attack: For tanks, if attacking a weakened unit that is overwhelmingly overmatched, the tank can automatically kill it and advance a hex and have another fire opportunity in the same turn. This blitz ability is part of the standard feature set of classic war games. It helps clear up clogged/quagmired positions and adds more intellectual thought to the game.

Entrenchment: Infantry in mountains/bases/seaports/fores t would accrue entrenchment levels (to some max) for each turn they sit on such hexes. These entrenchment levels should correspond to added defense statistics, making it more difficult than being able to be killed by two units - which even after 5 years I find dismayingly easy. Infantry in such terrain with high entrenchment should be a significant factor in any war game. Remember Leningrad or Stalingrad.

Counter-battery fire: A unit that is attacked with a friendly artillery unit nearby should have that battery fire in support. This can be tweaked numerous ways, including how damaging it would be. The net result is the attack is less effective than if would otherwise be, and the could be set up so that the attacking unit took more losses or simply inflicted less damage.

Suppression: Add an airborne ability that reduces a ground unit's attack strength or mobility by some factor during the course of the ground unit's next turn.

Airborne unit exempt from ground unit zone of control: Admittedly, this creates a situation where air and ground units could be stacked on the same hex, but we already have underlings underneath above ground units so it can be done. I've seen this in other war games for all air units, which makes logistical sense.

Jul 29, 2014 01:24

Subject: Re:Rank Reform

plingis

Messages: 17,
Joined: Jan 13, 2013,
Location: UNIWAR.UCOZ.COM
Offline

Wonderful article. Many agree. But there are several aspects that should be further developed

uniwar.ucoz.com

Jul 30, 2014 11:36

Subject: Re:Rank Reform

elroyomj

Messages: 29,
Joined: Mar 06, 2014,
Offline

I vote for keeping both systems - perhaps call it the old ladder and new/current ladder. Try the new one out for a test run and work the kinks as you go. I would hate to lose/tinker with the rich history (as far as an app is concerned) of the uniwar game.

Elroy

Jul 30, 2014 17:42

Subject: Re:Rank Reform

miamimoose

Messages: 52,
Joined: Mar 04, 2013,
Offline

Very very very well said Doug...the reform is a step backwards

Jul 31, 2014 07:58

Subject: Re:Rank Reform

plingis

Messages: 17,
Joined: Jan 13, 2013,
Location: UNIWAR.UCOZ.COM
Offline

miamimoose wrote: Very very very well said Doug...the reform is a step backwards

Revolution is a step back, two steps forward.))

uniwar.ucoz.com

Jul 31, 2014 17:22

Subject: Re:Rank Reform

miamimoose

Messages: 52,
Joined: Mar 04, 2013,
Offline

Lingis you should Google your historical revolutions mistake .||€»

Aug 01, 2014 02:36

Subject: Re:Rank Reform

rwieczor84

Messages: 184,
Joined: Dec 24, 2010,
Offline

everyone who says that is step back is getting right now advantage from the current system, like Dougman and tdanimal - i was playing against them on map 2vs2 and after my loose they don't want play as team 2 because they knew it was unbalanced.

Forum Index » What's New in the Latest Updates
◄ 1 2 3 4 5 ► Go Go to page...