map size in the ladder

[rootbeer23]

i may be a little slow... but i just had an epiphany!
if the 1v1 map is large, or alternatively the game is long no matter the map size, the trueskill rating should be affected more. makes sense, doesnt it?

discuss!

[Nombringer]

I agree...... But I think this will be VERY controversial.....

[Mad`Mozart]

Nah, its good now.

Of course bigger maps demand more time and effort put into them, but they are also played differently. If you take 5km and 20km maps, its not like 20km is just a "longer" version of 5km with more units and higher tech. They require different approach, strategy etc. And if you reward one play style over another - this is just wrong.

[rootbeer23]

bigger maps are just that: bigger. you build units and you shoot at units.
anyway, if you think it is about "rewarding" a "play style", then you should be in favour. someone who plays better on small maps
than on big maps gets more points than the opposite kind of player with the current situation.

[Nombringer]

True mozart, also a longer game means you were more evenly matched, not that it should be worth more rating to winner.

Eh, tbh I dont think rating system needs any change at all. Its good how it is.

[rootbeer23]

True mozart, also a longer game means you were more evenly matched, not that it should be worth more rating to winner.

you are right. the game time is not a good meter stick. it should be the map size or the average game time from past ladder games.

[Ze_PilOt]

The simpler solution is almost always the best one, and it's the one currently implemented. I don't see any reason to change it.

[prodromos]

" I may be a little slow... but i just had an epiphany!
if the 1v1 map is large, or alternatively the game is long no matter the map size, the trueskill rating should be affected more. makes sense, doesnt it?"

I could try to be charming or trolling, but not this time. So, to the point....
No, it would be bad and that's an understatement.
It could be abused so easily, playing only big maps, or protracting the length of the game on purpose to cheat the rating system. This in turn would transform ranked, to hour-long cases, diminishing your number of daily games and interactions. It could ultimately discourage a vital and very active part of players that play ranked and possibly to the death of ladder; and death of competitive play is death of a game whether you want to admit it or not.

I may understand what you have thought about anyway, in a sense that on bigger maps, there are theoretically more threat points, capacity to deploy revolutionary strategy and tactics.But I think it's impossible for a rating system to evaluate such qualitative aspects of gameplay, so this is another major reason it is not a good idea.

[Anaryl]

It could be abused so easily, playing only big maps, or protracting the length of the game on purpose to cheat the rating system. This in turn would transform ranked, to hour-long cases, diminishing your number of daily games and interactions. It could ultimately discourage a vital and very active part of players that play ranked and possibly to the death of ladder; and death of competitive play is death of a game whether you want to admit it or not.

Unlikely, too much risk.


What the ladder needs is a stat reset. Too many vestiges from unpopulated ladder, sequence, crude, not representive of trueskill of ladder. Non-performers occupy prime spots on ladder.

[FireMessiah]

the ladder has been heavily modified recently, and I think we all agree its now much much nicer! thankyou Zep and Co.
a brief drama, but now something that is working fine, and mostly accepted by players I think.
id hope we can have some stability in the ladder now, and see this system used for all of 2014.

would be nice if we could avoid any further changes to the ladder now, and focus development in other areas.

FireMessiah,
a happy ladder player