Ladder Site Online...

[csarmi]

I think that this whole discussion is based on a false premise. That is: match spammers are bad.
They're actually good for the ladder and good for the game.

They are there when you want to play someone, that might not sound all that important, but it is. They're advertising and driving the ladder system just by exisiting. Yes, you need a few enthusiastic players.

They also make the ratings more precise, just by upping the number of games played.
Whether they do that to boost their ego, or just by having fun and playing all they can, it doesn't really matter.

Another thing I'd add is that if their rating is too high (they are overrated), that's good too! People will think: "wow, if this guy could get so many points, so can I, let's play some more games". They're also very pleased when they get a 1900+ opponent they can beat.

If they play weak players only? So what? Even better. Newbies get trained like that, and those who dont, they were never to stay anyway.

Peopidas' analysis is good, and I like the rnd system too. Also in the chess Élő-system there existed a higher constant for lower ranked players (last time I remembered it started at about 40 and decreased to 10 only at 2100). That may be a good idea too.

Oh and if someone's pissed of because a player has higher rating than him, while HE is the better player. What's so wrong about that? HE shall know he's better, and most decent players too. Is that's not enough, it sounds pathetic... I mean if he lives because of that, do we REALLY need that kind of player? Is he better than the match spammers?

[TheMasterOfBattle]

You bring up some good points. Take KnightKunibert for example, I would not consider him a match spammer as he plays virtually anyone on the ladder. Which is why I proposed the one idea I had and why I am agaisnt the match cap.

Another solution I have thought of that might at least prevent match spamming is reducing the number of points you gain if the Average Elo of your opponents in a given week is more than 300 or so. Or simply reduce the number of games a high ranked player can win against players 300 or more Elo points below them each week.

If this will ever be a truly fixable problem, I don't know.

*edit* also, looking at the ladder statistics, it would seem to be a good thing that it has 300 games in the past 7 days, hopefully the cap won't reduce the number of players for now.

[Cernunnos]

TMOB wrote :

*edit* also, looking at the ladder statistics, it would seem to be a good thing that it has 300 games in the past 7 days, hopefully the cap won't reduce the number of players for now.

this number is possible since the cap has been introduced 3 days ago (2 days?) but today, there were only 15 games so far, i think it's quite few moreover for a friday, but it's early in the US i think, so...

While you're here TMOB, what for/against players who have an important number of revoked games (depending about who's fault it is)?
What about multiple accounts for which the dupe check isn't functioning properly?
And all other cheating form one could imagine?
What about letting the sportmanship appear on the ladder page?

This seems to me more important than the number of games a player can or cannot play...
And i repeat myself cause it was during an edit: What about the 2vs2 ladder? and more genrally what will be the priority in the to-do stuffs?

Less important :
Cause maybe half the player put the factions they were playing when report, could we imagine a list (not mandatory) to choose the factions you were playing, instead of each time writing the factions and the players?

Well thx, see ya!

[TheMasterOfBattle]

While you're here TMOB, what for/against players who have an important number of revoked games (depending about who's fault it is)?
What about multiple accounts for which the dupe check isn't functioning properly?
And all other cheating form one could imagine?
What about letting the sportmanship appear on the ladder page?

This seems to me more important than the number of games a player can or cannot play...
And i repeat myself cause it was during an edit: What about the 2vs2 ladder? and more genrally what will be the priority in the to-do stuffs?

Less important :
Cause maybe half the player put the factions they were playing when report, could we imagine a list (not mandatory) to choose the factions you were playing, instead of each time writing the factions and the players?

Well thx, see ya!

Hehe, some difficult questions there.

As for the people with high numbers of revoked games, it would have to be lookd into if it was simply people not wanting to lose games to him in order to not lose points. Perhaps a first time warning, second time short ban, third offense perma-baning might work

hehe, as to dupe check, there would not be much we could do as one could simply register from another computer to do it.

Hehe, as to cheating, again, there is not much we could do about it except if we were the ones to force scheduled matches.

As far as I am aware, the average sportsmanship rating already appears on the front page of the ladder.

As eyerouge had also planned, eventually, there should be a 2v2 ladder, the only question would be how to do it. Most likely I would think it would be players permently registered as teams and it would be possible to be on different teams as you could register as with different partners if you like.

Hope this answers some of your questions.

[Fosprey]

Oh and if someone's pissed of because a player has higher rating than him, while HE is the better player. What's so wrong about that? HE shall know he's better, and most decent players too. Is that's not enough, it sounds pathetic... I mean if he lives because of that, do we REALLY need that kind of player? Is he better than the match spammers?

AS i said if this is teh situation, the "better" player can challenge the "match spammer" via finding him in the lobby, sending him a mail asking at wha times the match spammer can be found playing , or even to try to arrange a match, (Especially on weekends where match spammers and everyone have more time). (i want to sayu that if somene challenge me and set a time, i don't have a problem with it, but i expect to play AT least a best of 3, probably a best of 5, moving my agenda to play a best of 1, i won't do it, if you want a best of 1, then just try to find me in the lobby once the cap is removed and i can play)

If the named match spammer would porpously say no, for example, the "better player" foundhim in the lobby, joined the hosted game, and he was kicked. Then i think we will have a situation there. Until then, i don't see the problem really.
As i say, me for example, i know i'm easy points for some players, and i don't mind giving them away if i'm beaten by superior play, in fact i would love to see them looking for me in the lobby.

[Pelopidas]

To answer to the three questions.

match cap: My first action in office will be to remove the match cap or lift it considerably until a better solution is implemented. This is also related to my argumentation that I do not really see any real reason for benefits from the match cap. In the view of that quite a bunch of people cannot play today because of the match cap and that with TMOB and me the majority of future admins want to abolish it as well as the players who posted in here, it might possibly be a good idea to lift the cap already today - do you agree eyerouge?

tournaments: Certainly a good idea - one could look how to support it from the ladder page.

2v2 ladder certainly an interesting project - one will have to think about the implementation.

health care: Certainly an issue. Coming from Germany I would first divide the units into level 2 or higher (get good private insurance) and level 1 or lower (get bad insurance). Costs will be taken from taxes of villagers.
The benefits from self regenerating units are directly granted to the pharmaceutical industry.

Best,
Pelopidas

[Eskon]

health care: Certainly an issue. Coming from Germany I would first divide the units into level 2 or higher (get good private insurance) and level 1 or lower (get bad insurance). Costs will be taken from taxes of villagers.
The benefits from self regenerating units are directly granted to the pharmaceutical industry.

*big sigh*

[Zarak-Kraken]

Hi admins

is really a good idea tournaments master of battle. with a system of classes I've really hate to see it. thank you for not letting die the ladder and have taken matters into their hands guys


Zarak

[ADmiral-N]

To the ladder admins:

There is a new variable in the configuration file called "ANTI_MATCHSPAM_METHOD". With this, you can disable matchspam protection, or enable it with 1 of 3 systems:
1. is what is currently in use: a fixed cap to limit the amount of allowed matches to X matches in Y days.
2. is a bit more subtle, if someone has played more than the specified amount of X games / Ydays and wins a game, their k value (used in calculating the gained points) will be reduced by a configurable factor.
3. will not instantly cut the k value, but gradually reduce it according to this: new_k = original_k * 2 ^ (- (recent_games - allowed_games) / (punishment_factor * 10)). This means that with a punishment factor of 0.5, the k value of the match spammer will be exactly halved when they are 5 games in excess of the cap, 1/4 after 10 games, 1/8 after 15 games and so on.

Enjoy!

[TheMasterOfBattle]

the second and third one both look interesting, what might be an idea is to follow the second one so it justs to a certain point, and than jumps into your third option. So you won't get any penalty for playing so many games, but the k value will gradually decrease after that number has been reached.

or maybe (i don't know what language the ladder is coded in) if for example if it was c++. Why not do something like this?

Code: Select all

if(recent_games<=allowed_games)
{
      new_k = original_k;
}

else   //could also be an else if
{
     new_k = original_k * 2 ^ (- (recent_games - allowed_games) / (punishment_factor * 10);
}

[Fosprey]

It's saturday i want to play in the ladder and i can't do something plz!

[Pelopidas]

@Fosprey,
we are quickly working on this.

@Admiral, TMOB
Can you possibly as next action remove the cap? I think we are a bit pressed. Also one can note that the number of matches has already dropped.

Admiral:
As an intermediate solution I would definitely favour solution 3.
I agree with TMOB that a smooth solution would be favourable:
new_k = original_k * a ^ (- (recent_games - allowed_games) / (punishment_factor))

Let us give it a short consideration:
Let punishment be 14 and a be 2: This means that by playing 28 matches you get just as many points as by playing 14 matches a week. I would deem this slightly to strong and thus would suggest the values a slight alteration.
I think the overall change should still be increasing with matches played, though on a slower pace. Reject thus the exponential which gives the wrong form. If we still want to keep on 14 matches, how about changing TMOB's function to:
new_k = original_k*(sqrt(allowed_games/recent_games))
where sqrt is the square root
This means that by playing four times the "allowed" matches, you alter your point change only by a factor of two, which removes incentives for match spam.
If TMOB agrees and there is no other objection I would think one should quickly implement this now and we will immediately put the news on the ladder page.

Apart from this - how about implementing an RD-system in the long run, Admiral? Does it create a problem?

Best,
Pelopidas

[TheMasterOfBattle]

yeah, removing the cap would be a good thing I think.

But after some discussion with fellow ladder players, most seem to think that there really isn't that much of a match spamming problem. Hence why aIam somewhat in favor of a modified version of solution 3, or perhaps nothing at all.

And interesting alternative solution suggested by Swift was that in order to be ranked, you must play x amount of games against oppenents at or above your skills class. Obviously this would have to be adjusted for players in he very high skill classes, it would probably be you have to play a smaller amount of games against people withen 3-4 skill classes of you.

[Pelopidas]

OK - after some discussion with TMOB we decided for the solution:

remove the match cap immediately

To soften fears about match spam (that we cannot detect so far) we reduce the elo change for heavy players:
if(recent_games<=allowed_games)
{
new_k = original_k;
}
else //could also be an else if
{
new_k = original_k*(sqrt(allowed_games/recent_games))
}

where we would like to use 21 matches in a week for the allowed_games variable, sqrt is the square root.

Admiral - can you implement this as quick as possible?

[eyerouge]

I don't know how often Admiral reads the forum and so on.

I'm currently also the only one with direct access to the web/sql server (with the exception of chains himself ofc). It's hosted by chains for free, so if you guys want to be able to edit the config file for the ladder directly yourself you would have to get access from him as I'm in not position to hand out accounts on his machine. Personally I advise you all very much not to do so unless the one doing it knows his PHP well, because else disatser will happen sooner or later and nobody will be there to fix it = / In the end it's up to you of course, for me it would be smoother if I didn't have to be webmaster for the site, so please try to find a webmaster and tell me when you do and solve it with chains.

At this moment and until you do I'm "forced" to handle it for you, so whatever change/site update you'd want on the site itself you'd have to tell me. This of course also depends on it 1) being changeable, meaning the site already supports the change/funtion and it's just something that has to be tweaked. Typical examples of that is changing the rules or the config file for the ladder. If you're interested in the config file and it's options it can be checked out via sourceforge, along with the rest of the code. 2) being already coded. I can't upload/update or change something which hasn't been written in code yet = P

regards
/e

Oh, almost forgot: About the cap - I'm working on updating the site to the latest release by Admiral, once that is done it will be easy to shut it off. I'll do so once the files are in place, I think it shouldn't take more than max 1h from now.

Edit: I think it's done now.