141 replies to this topic

[ExpaNd]

One question. Did you play on every map last month in qm, with all 3 of your nicknames?

Edited by ExpaNd, 08 October 2014 - 03:45 PM.

[Olaf]

One question. Did you play on every map last month in qm, with all 3 of your nicknames?

What's with all the off-topic stuff guys?

[ExpaNd]

What's with all the off-topic stuff guys?

I believe we're trying to reach a community agreement to further solidify the argument of a New ra2 proposal that has branched off of the original topic.

However my input is already in this topic so I guess ill leave it at that

[Mikoz]

Lets keep it with the increase of the best of series.

[FReQuEnZy]

@martin I've wanted a smaller map pool for years.. When I ran the map patch with frank we always kept it to 16 max new maps- this idea isn't new

Never said it was new, at the start I said to return it to what you had.

QM map pool should be a total of 12-16 every month.

You guys are really noobs, go ahead, limit the amounth of maps after 14 years

It's not about limiting or being a noob, it's about refining the QM experience.

What's with all the off-topic stuff guys?

The discussion is branching out into sub topics within the original.

[zMarsHz]

so far the 2 proposals I've made, turned into

 

F2P

Giving away serials

Flaming the idea

Smaller Map Pool (not a bad idea, sc2 has been doing this for years every ladder reset)

and other suggestions

 

you all failed to see the point that I don't care about adding more players to xwis, the ideas have been pitched and they all seemed to fail or burn out, my idea was to help ladder activity some, like sammo said he has a terrible time zone, mikoz doesn't of course he will not have a shot to compete on pts, why bother playing, that's how many players are feeling.

[Mikoz]

at the moment your a 'player' you bother. else you dont go online, nore post on st. thats how i see it. 

[ExpaNd]

Well I agree adding a 7 win rule to cm, since there aren't even that many clans anyways.

The qm rule is a tough one to edit however.
Because if you want more games you shouldnt bail people (like latof or Tim or whoever else etc...)

[FReQuEnZy]

Best of 9 would be good. I vote for that.

[zMarsHz]

bo9 for qm

bo15 for cm

[ZiGZaG]

bo9 for qm

bo15 for cm

 

I agree with this.

[OlafxD]

there are 2 possible scenarios:

 

A) you go 3-0/4-0 and now you're possibly not able to match him anymore in qm (now you either can adapt the qm filter, and the outcome within 1 day will be someone making a topic and crying about it "OFMG ME LOSE 60PTS TO A PRO ON NEW ACC" or you're forced to continue your matches in custom match with the nowadays special rules.

now there goes this guy expand saying "hey tomi not all r win all games like you". -> scenario B.

B) okay so lets say you actually are equal and go like 5-3 or 5-4. but now what exact difference will it make to the ladder if you go 6-3 (bo9) or 3-1 (bo5, and 5-4 (bo9) or 3-2 (bo5)? the pts gain/lose will stay similar, so how exactly will it affect the ladder?

also people who are willing to play a bo9 for SURE have a 2nd or 3rd account you'd play anyways.

 

so while you could play them on these accounts where the gain/lose is better (which helps the ladder activity way more) instead of the possibility of losing 60p or having custom games you decide to play him for 3-4 hours on 1 account.

which also means a 3rd or 4th person wont be able to play you guys cuz you're playing for days, unless you stop after 4-5 games which kills the whole idea behind the bo9 concept.

or you could say you will continue your games after (which you also could on a 2nd or 3rd acc with probably better ratios).

and if you rarely play and are up for a bo9 im also sure youll be happy with continuing in ffg or clan (and not interested in helping the ladder otherwise you'd simply play more active)

 

or do you actually think that people suddenly will have more time/motivation to play because there is a higher winlimit? kinda much different, because we wont get to play guys like you at all.

 

increase ladder activity -> play active/continously, get unactive people active again (definitely not with that new rule), get new/more people (definitely not with that new rule). simple thinking.

 

so please in gods and tupacs name, explain to me what your thinkings are, because im really trying to understand, but i just cant.

[zMarsHz]

no, selfishly i was concenred with my style of using 1 nick, so i don't have 3 or 4 accounts to game with

 

i also don't care for the guy waiting

 

i have a bad timezone, so therefore when i find someone willing to play, the game last to 3 games and i have to search for another game which can take time.

 

increase ladder activity, we are on different ideas, i don't care about bring a lot of players to xwis, tried that as did a lot of other, failed. but i'd like to see people be able to actually compete with the ladder, someone on a fairly decent timezone with the abundance of players on, can easily gain more points on the game out of sheer numbers.

 

there are a few players i know that don't qm because there is no point, they can't get enough matches with timezone to want to try.

 

if you don't like the idea, i don't care, i like the idea, so i brought it up. and don't bring tupac in this, i've been tired of tupac racism and music since 1997.

 

sorry if i'm coming off an asshole, you know of all people i like you buddy, but we're not seeing eye to eye on this one.

[OlafxD]

its not about liking the idea or not, its about thinking about the outcome.

 

i like the idea of increasing ladder activity, but i still say it definitely wont work that way. but maybe the change just has to happen to see what actually will happen. but remember what ive said

 

just like you dont care if i like the idea or not, i dont care if you like the idea im just trying to stay objective and think realistic about the outcome
 

its ok bro, no offense taken, we just have different opinions and thats ok, makes life more interesting otherwise it would be boring if we all think the same way and shared the same opinions

 

p.s. i love tupac, so TUPAC 4 LIFE

[Edd]

If you up the games, would you have to change the point system to make it work?

 

I'm kinda with Tomi on this one. Though I dont disagree with you, Marsh. 

 

We just need more players 

[FReQuEnZy]

Meh.. this thread has gone to waste...

Increase win limit to 5 for QM and 7 for CM it will improve the experience for players in bad timezones.

Add mod maps to the maps patch as it doesn't hurt anyway.
Don't like em, don't play em, simple.

Everyone wins.
There's really nothing left to discuss, just to wait for the staff to decide this.

Edited by FReQuEnZy, 09 October 2014 - 02:47 PM.

[aCnChaOz]

One more forgotten thread which has good ideas to bring activity but now its one of 1000 which admins ignore xD. Let us wait for thread 1001 which has good ideas and admins ignores. Maybe they react when the activity goes down to 2 ppl (olaf and paf)

[Shauny]

Post in cheat reports that will get there attention

[SensFaiL]

I say if you change the amount of games why not change the point system. With so little players playing now why not make losses more forgiving but keep the points won the same. This allows for people to be more apt to play someone with lower pts and not be as penalized for a loss. This is similar to how some of the newer cc games were like cc tw/kw and ra3

[willy]

Didn't read the topic

But at a time where this game will enter its 14th/15th year, there should be no restrictions on who you can play, and how many times.

There is barely anyone online for some timezones. Removing those restrictions could at least allow casual players such as myself to get games against one (because sometimes there are none) player all afternoon.

 

Just a thought for Olaf i suppose.

[rumblesom]

Staff hasn't forgotten this topic, we're slowly trying to put together an update package.

[zzattack]

How do you guys feel about changing the way the ladder works so that in the top-end of the ladder, points are no longer equivally distributed but actually marginally gained. In the current situation, the way you gain a good rank is by winning and specifically not losing. It's not about how much you play, it's all about how much more you win than you lose. This is due to the ladder mechanism where points 'enter' the ladder at the very bottom, due to losses never costing more than 10% of your accumulated points. This works perfectly fine in highly active competitions, but by now we need other ways to stimulate activity.

 

I understand that the current points system is buried real deep into RA2 mentality, but it's not for the better. People bail in fear of losing more points which are hard to get back. People don't bother playing until end of month because all it takes is roughly 25 games to end #1, doable over the course of a single weekend. 

 

I'd like to see these two issues remedied by introducing a slight number of points in every game played. For example, imagine two players both at 800 points match. Normally, the winner ends with 800+32 points and the lower has 800-32 points remaining. What if we changed this so that the winner still ends with 800+32, but the loser remains at 800-24 points, effectively introducing 8 points to the ladder. This way, a close 5-4 BO9 is beneficial to both players, stimulating activity. Of course, such a system would need to be tuned to prevent abuse from giving each other freewins which may end up seeming mutually beneficial.

[Mikoz]

How do you guys feel about changing the way the ladder works so that in the top-end of the ladder, points are no longer equivally distributed but actually marginally gained. In the current situation, the way you gain a good rank is by winning and specifically not losing. It's not about how much you play, it's all about how much more you win than you lose. This is due to the ladder mechanism where points 'enter' the ladder at the very bottom, due to losses never costing more than 10% of your accumulated points. This works perfectly fine in highly active competitions, but by now we need other ways to stimulate activity.

 

I understand that the current points system is buried real deep into RA2 mentality, but it's not for the better. People bail in fear of losing more points which are hard to get back. People don't bother playing until end of month because all it takes is roughly 25 games to end #1, doable over the course of a single weekend. 

 

I'd like to see these two issues remedied by introducing a slight number of points in every game played. For example, imagine two players both at 800 points match. Normally, the winner ends with 800+32 points and the lower has 800-32 points remaining. What if we changed this so that the winner still ends with 800+32, but the loser remains at 800-24 points, effectively introducing 8 points to the ladder. This way, a close 5-4 BO9 is beneficial to both players, stimulating activity. Of course, such a system would need to be tuned to prevent abuse from giving each other freewins which may end up seeming mutually beneficial.

 

Very good idea.

[Sean3z]

@zzattack I totally agree. That's basically the direction I'll be going with my alternative ladder.

[FReQuEnZy]

@zzattack I totally agree. That's basically the direction I'll be going with my alternative ladder.

 

Sc2 uses a similar system, except that they have bonus points pool for people who don't play very actively.

Instead of losing points on their ladder rank, the points are subtracted from their limited bonus point pool.

 

If a player doesn't compete in the ladder for a while the bonus pool rises a bit, if they keep playing and lose they will run out of points.