Promotion Challenges -- Rules Changes Proposals & Feedback

by **Drakona** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:48 pm

A new season is upon us! It's time to discuss rules changes, and this time around we'd like to get public feedback, particularly on the promotion challenges. So -- how have they been going? What works, what doesn't work, is there anything you think we should change?

Here are the things we're thinking about doing for the new season.

One of the things we've had trouble with is suicides in promotion challenge matches. The target scores are set by the rating algorithm, which accounts for suicides, but the margins in a match don't account for them. So if you're playing someone much better than you, they can make that margin wider than the ladder's expecting by suiciding strategically a lot. We all know that, and for the most part have ignored the problem. "Just play normal," we tell people, "because it'll annoy everyone if we have to make a rule."

Well. I think it's time to make a rule. Here's what we are thinking: every three suicides in a game closes the margin by 1 point, to a minimum of +/- 1. So 14-20 with 3 suicides counts as a margin of 5, not 6.

Why three? The math works out for the kill/death ratios we're expecting in promotion challenges. It's easy to remember. And three is a pretty reasonable line between a "normal" number of suicides in a game and an "abnormal" number.

We would like feedback on whether this rule sounds like a good idea.

Next item we're thinking about doing something about is that last slot in a challenge. It's pretty easy to get the first four games played, particularly if there are blank spots that someone can claim if they see you. But very often the last slot is claimed and it's hard to connect. We talked about doing something about it, like making match claims time out, or even making it so you can't claim the last spot -- just have to play it -- but the conclusion we came to was that it's not enough of a problem to be worth a rule. You guys got this. Agree?

We'd like to eliminate ratings timeouts, and return ratings to anyone who's been rated in this season and the last. Now that ratings are much harder to get, they should be harder to lose, to avoid hassling occasional pilots.

We'd like to give someone joining the ladder for the first time a longer period of time to get through their promotion challenge. Say, 60 days rather than 14. To avoid a Warmaster scenario.

Does that sound reasonable? Are there other things you think we should do?

by **Sirius** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 10:40 am

Suicide rule: agreed
Last spot in promotion challenge: agreed, it's not really much of a problem as far as I've seen
Ratings timeouts: Not familiar enough with the problem to have an opinion
First-time promotions: This is for initial tier placement? I thought I saw something for that once, unclear on how much of a problem it is.

by **Drakona** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 11:16 am

Ratings timeouts -- the way we've done it in the past is that if you haven't played a game for an entire season, you lose your rating and go back to unrated. We didn't want people coasting, and they were easy to get back. They're still easy to get back, but it might make more sense to not lose them. Usually when people don't play for a year or so . . . they come back right where they were. I don't want people to have to go through promotion challenges at LANs if that's the only time of year they play.

First-time promotions: yes, initial placement. "Welcome to the ladder, please play 5 matches with specific people in two weeks!" -- is a bit rude. It's a reasonable expectation for a pilot who has worked themselves up to a higher skill level (they're probably pretty active), but iffy for someone joining. Warmaster had this problem. Made a decent effort, didn't get it done in two weeks. We extended the deadline because leaving someone unrated for 12ish matches would have been dumb.

This is just making that decision a policy.

It doesn't come up a lot. Most people joining the ladder play 2 matches, go bronze, end of story. But if someone is going to go straight to gold or silver, they run into a tight time challenge before they're even sure if they want to be here.

by **Mark392** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 11:32 am

All sounds good to me!

by **Drakona** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:16 pm

Note on three suicides! That doesn't mean you can safely do two. The other guy might do the third one. We figure this rule lets you get away with one . . . an option we want to preserve.

Of course, that's all theory. Gotta see how it actually plays out in the mines.

by **PFunk** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:48 pm

I think the suicide rule is a smart one. It can be frustrating if your target is 12 and the better pilot suicides when they are < 15 shields to prevent you from getting a kill. I don't think that is a "play normal" tactic. The only time this might be considered normal is if there's a battle for top tier spot and it's a very close battle.

by **roncli** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 3:50 pm

Suicide rule: I like this and I don't. Suicides should benefit the person trailing the match, not winning it, but in the promotion challenge suicides definitely favor the person leading the match. I do like the concept of strategic suicides, though, and do NOT like the idea of having to count while in game. Were there 2 suicides or 3 already? I'd say trial it, see how it goes, and see what it affects.

Last spot in promotion challenge: Leave it as is. I have no problem with admins stepping in if someone claims a spot for too long. Plus, pilots have been good in stepping back if they can't play.

Rating timeout: Leave it as is. Case in point is Icewolf, his rating timed out, but he came back and the algorithm gave him silver without having to play a promotion series. It's fine as is.

Newbie promotion: Agree. 14 days can be a little rough on a returning pilot. 60 might be too long, you might look at reducing it to 30.

by **Mark392** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:07 pm

I'm under the impression the suicide idea only effects promotion/demotion challenges, that's why I'm ok with it. I don't want to have to think about it in game when my thought process is, "if I die here where are the guns... I know I can get 3-4 kills without getting hurt but will die trying to get guns... Oh wait, how many suicides do I have and how many does my opponent have??...hmmmm"....

by **roncli** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:17 pm

Yes, it does. This does NOT eliminate suicide strats by the leader, but they now have to know exactly how many suicides there have been in a game before deciding if suiciding is #worth.

by **Mark392** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:41 pm

Gun control is such a huge part of the game today that it's almost always #worthit

even if I have to count! But that is a bit stressing haha!