Should Unrated Players Affect Streaks?

[Drakona]

The way matches against unrated players are handled is confusing right now: they don't fully count, but they partly count. They affect your record, but not your streak, and don't affect medals, except that they still help you with matches / unique opponents / etc.

That's pretty darn confusing.

Would it be better if matches against unrated players didn't count at all? Or if they full counted -- that is, once the player was rated, the ladder went back and recalculated *everything* -- medals, streaks, the whole 9 yards -- as if that player had been rated at the time? (That could be technically difficult, but I'll work it out if it's the right thing to do...)

Or would it be okay to leave the medals alone, but at least update the streaks so a 10-0 record results in a streak of 10 and not something weird like 8?

[LotharBot]

This is a difficult question. Let me illustrate by example:

Sirius just got rated -- first silver, then gold after a few more matches. If he had happened to win the match that got him rated, should that have broken someone's silver streak? Or if he won the match that pushed him from silver to gold, should that break a silver streak or a gold streak? Or if someone beat him before, and later their streak ended one short of a medal, should his becoming rated suddenly pop them a medal from 2 months ago?

IMO you should always know what's on the line when you start a match. That is, you should know whether your silver streak or gold streak or bronze streak could be lengthened or broken. You should know whether you're playing for a trophy or not. You should know if you're playing for a medal or not. I think it's important to count the matches, but allowing unrated pilots to retroactively break or extend streaks when they become rated is weird.

[Jediluke]

I think that we already have the lesser of two evils and there likely isn't a better solution available to us.