Tower Wars > General Discussion > Topic Details
El Chihuahua Feb 18, 2013 @ 4:51am
Message to the developpers
Can we add a 'decay rate' like in wacraft 3? I mean there are top ladder players that don't play anymore and they are still 'top' players. We will never have a chance to play against them and with that decay system in place, it may get them to play again. It doesn't need to be so tough as the warcraft 3 or Dawn of war system but I think there should be something like this in place. If you don't play a minimum of 5 games per month, you lose 50 to a 100 points. That way we can see who are really the top players. We know that the top 1 and 2 are really active but the top 3 and 5 don't play any longer. I didn't see their ratings moving for like 2 months (never saw it moving for the top 5). I think it's unfair to active players that some players who don't play still remain at the top of the ladder.

I take also this opportunity to ask that we split the solo games from team games. Some people only play 2v2 and are not so good in 1v1. This is a suggestion though and doesn't bother me as much.

"What does "decay rate" mean?
Players may lose XP if they do not play a minimum number of games per week, as listed on Chart 1. Failure to play the minimum game requirement during a week--defined as beginning and ending on Monday at 12 a.m. Pacific Standard Time (UTC-8)--results in an XP penalty equivalent to what you would get from losses to an opponent of similar skill level. For each game you don't play below the amount required for your level, one loss is added."

We should also change the grace period system : If we quit within the first 2 minutes, we don't lose rating but that any crash, disconnection thereafter count as one loss with the according points reduction. Or we do it like in warcraft, no grace period. We could instead lose only half of the points if we crash or get disconnected. Some people really take advantage of the current system in place...

"Can you exit from a newly created ladder game within a short period of time if it is laggy without a loss?
No. There is no grace period at the beginning of a game as existed in Starcraft. The integrity of the Warcraft III ladders relies on the anonymous nature of Battle.net's matchmaking service. Allowing users to determine whom they are playing and then leave a game based on this knowledge without penalty could compromise the ladder."

http://classic.battle.net/war3/ladder/war3-ladder-info-ladderfaq.aspx
Last edited by El Chihuahua; Feb 18, 2013 @ 5:37am
Showing 1-15 of 20 comments
< >
d00mi Feb 18, 2013 @ 5:09am 
I would support this suggestion
Volcaine Feb 18, 2013 @ 12:06pm 
I agree with the idea of a decay system. Maybe even a complete revamp of how the rating system works. I'm not so sure about the 2v2 suggestion though because if you do this, it would be a lot harder to find 2v2 matches.
El Chihuahua Feb 18, 2013 @ 4:24pm 
Originally posted by Volcaine:
I agree with the idea of a decay system. Maybe even a complete revamp of how the rating system works. I'm not so sure about the 2v2 suggestion though because if you do this, it would be a lot harder to find 2v2 matches.

It would just be a matter of how you calculate points, don't see how it could make the matchmaking any different
Volcaine Feb 18, 2013 @ 9:12pm 
Well I think it would discourage some people from playing 2v2. One thing I think would be useful (although I doubt we'd get it) is some sort of in game lobby where players can chat. This way we can see who's online and their rating and be able to set up matches quickly by messaging them (1v1, 2v2, and 3v3). Players would just search for a match at the same time when they agree to face each other. I take this idea from the age of empires/mythology games.
El Chihuahua Feb 19, 2013 @ 4:02am 
Originally posted by Volcaine:
Well I think it would discourage some people from playing 2v2. One thing I think would be useful (although I doubt we'd get it) is some sort of in game lobby where players can chat. This way we can see who's online and their rating and be able to set up matches quickly by messaging them (1v1, 2v2, and 3v3). Players would just search for a match at the same time when they agree to face each other. I take this idea from the age of empires/mythology games.

Yes but they'll not be 'random' matches any longer. A lobby would be great but you won't be able to influence who you'll get, you'll just see the players who are playing or looking for a game... That could be a good idea.
FerrenReve Feb 19, 2013 @ 4:37am 
Hmmmmm i agree
SwogDog  [developer] Feb 19, 2013 @ 7:42am 
I also agree with this. This was our plan in the beginning, but the way Steam Leaderboards work, they can only be updated from an outside source (such as our game servers. There is no internal way for a Steam Leaderboard to decay. So, the only way we could implement a decay is to have each game played calculate the decay and apply it, but this only furthers the real problem because if people don't play a match, they won't decay.

The next best thing we can do is reset all scores to 1000 and have everyone start fresh (I can hear the groaning of top players from here). I've been throwing this one back and forth, thinking we could do "seasons" where we let the scores go for a few months, award the top players some achievements, then reset the score. Maybe each season would have it's own unique reward icon. What do you guys think of something like that?

And to be clear, this isn't something I can promise, just tossing out ideas.
El Chihuahua Feb 19, 2013 @ 9:52am 
I don't know about that but we at least need to have the top 50 have some 'decay rate penalties'. I like the season idea as long as you keep the previous season's score somewhere and last ranking beside, I think it would be would be ok! I also like the idea to award something too and why not let the top 3 players vote for upcoming features or vote for maps or something... Let's do something anyway :D
Last edited by El Chihuahua; Feb 19, 2013 @ 9:55am
El Chihuahua Feb 19, 2013 @ 10:32am 
I would also suggest for the next season to do something about the grace period...

We should also change the grace period system : If we quit within the first 2 minutes, we don't lose rating but that any crash, disconnection thereafter count as one loss with the according points reduction. Or we do it like in warcraft, no grace period. We could instead lose only half of the points if we crash or get disconnected. Some people really take advantage of the current system in place...

"Can you exit from a newly created ladder game within a short period of time if it is laggy without a loss?
No. There is no grace period at the beginning of a game as existed in Starcraft. The integrity of the Warcraft III ladders relies on the anonymous nature of Battle.net's matchmaking service. Allowing users to determine whom they are playing and then leave a game based on this knowledge without penalty could compromise the ladder."
Volcaine Feb 19, 2013 @ 11:38am 
Originally posted by EL Chihuahua:
I also like the idea to award something too and why not let the top 3 players vote for upcoming features or vote for maps or something...
I think that's a horrible idea, sorry. They shouldn't get too much of a benefit. SwogDog's idea of giving the top players achievements would be better I think. I also would be fine with his "season" idea.
El Chihuahua Feb 19, 2013 @ 11:47am 
Originally posted by Volcaine:
Originally posted by EL Chihuahua:
I also like the idea to award something too and why not let the top 3 players vote for upcoming features or vote for maps or something...
I think that's a horrible idea, sorry. They shouldn't get too much of a benefit. SwogDog's idea of giving the top players achievements would be better I think. I also would be fine with his "season" idea.

I don't know I am just tossing out ideas too
zetthen Feb 20, 2013 @ 3:55pm 
I am gonna throw in a few thoughts of my own into theis - I probably shouldnt after a few beers, but I will anyway:

1) I used to be one of the up an coming "new" players. I felt a ranking of 1600 and surpassing Voyle was unachievable. I was proven wrong. Anyone can do it.

2) Have you checked the play stats of QooQ - look at the amount of games he has to get to the rating he has. DEdication should also have a value IMHO.

3) As for seasonal stats: Interesting idea. I like the idea also for veterans, in order to keep interest high (Believe me, it sucks to lose 14 p on a loss, and only gain more than 1p by winning over the few top-50 players still active..)

4) I like achievements - it would trigger me. Does everyone? Not sure.. How about combining an achievement with a RL prize? Like an awesome SVS-t shirt?

5) Resetting might trigger veterans to reconnect. Gallaorn is probably the best player in 1v1 and it is a pity newcomers do not get the chance to match up against him. Again - point 1,2 and 4 above should be considered IMHO...

TLDR: Resetting is an interesting idea. Should still award dedicated and good players propoerly.
Volcaine Feb 22, 2013 @ 12:56am 
Originally posted by zetthen:
2) Have you checked the play stats of QooQ - look at the amount of games he has to get to the rating he has. DEdication should also have a value IMHO.

I agree with you that dedication should have value. However, I think the only value it should have is in the improved skill that inevitably would follow if you invest more and more time into the game. A good rating system would work just like that. The current rating system does NOT work in this way. While it does ensure that the top players are most likely very very good, it does not ensure that the players with the highest skill are on top.

To become the number 1 player right now, you pretty much have to play a ridiculous ammount of games. Most of these games, due to the matchmaking system, are against players who have no chance at all against you. QoOQ has screenshots of him facing off against people below 1000 rating in ranked games. Obviously a better matchmaking would prevent this. No offense to the developers, but this might be one of the worst ranking systems I've seen for a game. I have never seen another game where the top players can get matched against a complete noob, and quite frankly it is completely ludicrous. If a top player is playing against a noob, it should be in a private match and probably to help them. Right now it is like new players are slimes in an rpg that give 1 xp each. The top players can farm them all day because they get matched against them. Not only is this boring to skilled players, it is frustrating and rage inducing for new players.

I will also re-propose my lobby/chatroom idea as a potential fix to the current rating system. Games like Age of Mythology/Age of Empires used this system, and I believe it is an integral part to the success of their matchmaking system. Basically, players would have the option to join one of a few possible lobbies to talk with other players and possibly set up matches. The ratings of other players in the lobby could be next to their names so people see who is around their skill level, although this is not 100% necessary as the top players will usually know who the other top players are anyway due to the ladder. I believe most top players would wait till they see another top player in the chat room and ask them for a game. This system would encourage top players to play each other, as I doubt they want to play noobs for 1 point(unless they really aren't a top player) when they could get say 5-10 points against players closer to their rank. This would also help with 2v2/3v3 games as players would not be forced to play in a 2v2/3v3 game with a random partner just to get smashed by a well coordinated group of friends. In general, the lobby would just help all around with improving the rating system.

In response to the concern Chihuahua had about the matches not being random anymore, that is not quite true. Just because two players agree to face each other does not mean they will get matched with each other. If they both search for a game at the same time, but someone else was already searching, one of them will most likely get matched with the person who was searching first. Furthermore, if another highly ranked player sees that the other two are about to start a match, he could snipe the match and play one of them instead. Now of course for this to work, there would have to be some changes that don't allow players to disconnect to avoid an opponent. I understand that this is setup in the game right now in case players are having some problems that they didn't realize before they started the game and so they don't wish to start it anymore. However, these circumstances are the minority, and to protect the integrity of the game, I don't think players should be allowed to disconnect any game that has already been setup without taking a loss. I don't think players would get too mad if they take just 1 loss under these circumstances. They might under the current system though since 1 loss could be the equivalent of 20 wins. Anyways, just throwing these ideas out there. And again, these aren't really my ideas as I took them from the way Age of Mythology was setup.
Gallaorn Mar 1, 2013 @ 9:05pm 
I just played a couples of games and seems like I am still not too bad since I didnt lose. I think most of us old player still "deserve" our score. Odds are if you dont have a score near mine you wont be able to get to tier3 with me even if I am rusty.

IMHO instead of crying you should put in the time like I did get better and get your score up. it will be even easier for you because when I went up I started to get 1 point game when I was ranked 1500. Try grinding from 1500 to 2000 when losing mean -14 points and winning is 1 points. You are simply not allowed to lose anymore period.

Anyway its not like I am active anymore so do what you want but really do you want the number 1 spot handed to you free or do you want a sense of achievement and deserve it?
Volcaine Mar 2, 2013 @ 1:56pm 
Originally posted by Gallaorn:
Anyway its not like I am active anymore so do what you want but really do you want the number 1 spot handed to you free or do you want a sense of achievement and deserve it?

How would it be handed out for free? The idea is to promote skill over grinding. Maybe the top 20 players are indeed the top 20 players in the current system, who knows. But if 19 of them can only play at most 3 hours a day and the other can play 10 or more hours, he will be rank 1 even if he is the worst of the 20 top players. The current number 1 player even says himself that there's others who are better than him. Some of us don't want to beat up on noobs all day and discourage them from playing the game further. This game is not an rpg. You do realize you have spent over 700 hours on this game, most of which has probably been against weak players. What's the fun in that? For you and for the noobs..

You say after you reach a rank of 1500 you simply aren't allowed to lose anymore? That's exactly because you only get matched against players weaker than you and rarely get a real challenge. That's not a balanced rating system. In a balanced system, you would get matched against more players with similar rating to yours. You can't deny that your win-loss ratio would not be so flawless if all your games were against people closer to your rating.
Showing 1-15 of 20 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Feb 18, 2013 @ 4:51am
Posts: 20