Ladder Site Online...

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Henrythe12th
Posts: 19
Joined: January 24th, 2010, 9:35 pm
Location: Altötting, Germany

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Henrythe12th »

eyerouge wrote:Reason why I never setup a forum of it's own for the ladder is that I believe it's absurde to divide the community/activity into 2 separate forums, especially in a FOSS prohect. Hence, it's better that there is no ladder forum than one that's separate, but preferably there would be a ladder section on this forum if I had a say...
Generally i agree. But imo the atmosphere in ladder is a bit to competitive atm. I think nice tournaments like the current ambush tourney should be conducted much more often. Thank you Death :D
eyerouge wrote:c) Multi-ladder support is already in the trunk for the ladder code, thanks to the great work of Tesa.
I am looking forward to it. :wink:
User avatar
Death
Posts: 85
Joined: April 15th, 2008, 3:34 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Death »

eyerouge wrote:As a matter of fact, I'd say that always goes for the majority of players of Wesnoth since the game has a too great of passer-bys: People that come and go and only play the game for a very short while to never again revisit it. In any case, my point is that the ladder, as any other social body, holds mixed players, as do the non-ladder forums where people gather.
too true. however, at least with ladder you can check somebody's background, instead of just taking chances (often bad) with whatever random person happens to swim by.


I was against that while I was admin but for the ladder having it's on section within this forum
yeah, that's what i meant. I agree.

a) If luck really is such a huge factor of the game - why do you think some players keep on beating the top contenders?
because they get lucky, obviously.

unless you're referring to players that consistently beat top tier contenders? in which case, i'd say it's a safe bet the former will surpass the latter.


i already have read quite a bit about these so called rng "discussions," and it seems to me the real problem is getting sufficient testing of a mod, enough so that it becomes the norm for all players who wish for a better alternative to the current rng system. there are several reasons why this hasn't been achieved, and i find the one given (namely "it's only a very small very loud minority that dislikes the rng") to be highly implausible.

in fact, i think it's really only a specific type of player that becomes disenchanted with the current rng, and this player type abounds on the ladder. I could be wrong, but if I'm not, and a good percentage of rng-haters are enmeshed in the ladder, then it would be worth using the ladder system as a testing ground for a more universally accepted system.


b) If a mod would be implemented it would wreck the whole Elo system, since the system would then measure something else.
correct. in effect, it would be a reset, but, see c) below.

c) Multi-ladder support is already in the trunk for the ladder code, thanks to the great work of Tesa. You can always tell the admins to install the latest code, and start another ladder, where only the non-rng-mod is used. That way there would be two ladders, and none would interfere with what the other measures. (I do however advise against starting such a ladder until you know that there is a long-term coder on the mods you will use...)
mm kay, awesome. thanks tesa! you really lived up to your name :).

yeah, this might be the better solution. I'll have to look into it. i am still interested to know how many ladder players would be in favor of using sauron's work (so far, the feedback is 1 and 1).
User avatar
eyerouge
Posts: 380
Joined: June 29th, 2007, 4:37 am
Location: wtactics.org
Contact:

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by eyerouge »

Death wrote:
eyerouge wrote: a) If luck really is such a huge factor of the game - why do you think some players keep on beating the top contenders?
because they get lucky, obviously.
There is no such thing as "luck". It doesn't exist. That was my whole point in the previous reply (albeit a bit unclear). Since luck doesn't exist nobody can be lucky or unlucky. The notion of luck is simply a remain from our culture and is derived from what we feel is unjust or somehow magical/destiny etc, in other words ridiculous ideas about phenomenons that are somehow "magical".

Hence nobody can have a random generator on his/her side. And even if one appears to have, it is all correct in the long run and all the math is valid. The RNG has been tested a million times in simulations and what not. It works.

This is all really just a psychological question about perception of failure/success and/or the way we interpret the result of a dice throw. The sooner everyoens understands that, the clearer the mind.

(Sidenote: Luck/unluck can be defined in terms of deviations from expected probability etc, but again - in the long run there is no deviationm, even if there can be huge ones in a specific game... The ladder is however a long term measurement, thus speaking of local deviations matter not)

All this said, I think everyone should play Wesnoth the way they want, and would love seeing a non-rng ladder & mod in the works that is maintained.
Eskon
Posts: 184
Joined: August 12th, 2008, 2:21 pm
Location: Esslingen, Germany

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Eskon »

http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=28444

Rigor and Quetzalcoatl made a suggestion regarding the ladder which I think deserves to be discussed here: Namely, to amend the ladder rules to enforce the usage of the "Random Map"-addon made by grrr.

An inherent weakness of a competitive environment with a ranking system is that players will tend to play for their rating as their major goal, which means they will do everything they can to improve their chances of winning. When given a choice, they will make the one that they consider to give them the greatest chances.

The system, as it is, favors map specialization over "allround" ability. Many people do play on unfamiliar maps due to either boredom, lack of alternatives, or a feeling that one should be willing to face others, but always in the knowledge that their rating will suffer if they do so compared to just continuing to play the favored maps. The result of this is that some maps get so little play on the ladder that they simply just don't factor in the ranking score. The top players might be genuine allround Wesnoth masters, but some might be ranked as high as they are simply because they are good on the maps they choose to play; if they played against another player, ranked dozens of places below but with more "allround" experience, on a map they do not know, they would likely end up losing. Only, they never will, because it would screw their ladder rating, and they don't have to.

Changing to enforced random maps would have several benefits: First, it would increase the size of the playing field, widen the scope of the game and reward adaptiveness and allround Wesnoth experience more, making the game more interesting. Second, it would provide more replays for the less played maps, improving statistical analysis and possibly assisting in balance. Third and most importantly, it would mean that everyone the ladder actually plays the same game.

There are disadvantages. People would lose the ability to face each other in ladder matches on previously agreed maps. I don't really see this as a problem; the ladder doesn't exist solely for their benefit. Players can freely play non-ladder matches instead. Players don't like to be forced into playing conditions; but I think the ladder should not shy away from doing so if it leads to overall benefit.
User avatar
eyerouge
Posts: 380
Joined: June 29th, 2007, 4:37 am
Location: wtactics.org
Contact:

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by eyerouge »

Eskon wrote:http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=28444

Rigor and Quetzalcoatl made a suggestion regarding the ladder which I think deserves to be discussed here: Namely, to amend the ladder rules to enforce the usage of the "Random Map"-addon made by grrr.
I think that was discussed and it was more or less concluded that a strong majority who cared to reply was for the idea.

To be honest, no more discussion is needed, nor would it achieve anything since the ladder lacks an active administartion that will a) become involved in the discussion or b) implement/change anything as a result of the communitys wishes. This is a point I've made maybe 20 times in this epic thread, which also makes this whole thread meaningless since no admin cares to read or reply using it.

The system, as it is, favors map specialization over "allround" ability.
Agree on all accounts since you're probably correct. Only worry I have with enforcing an un-official mod is the same as I expressed the last time this issue was raised: There must be a guaranteed maintainer of the mod, since if it breaks with revisions to Wesnoth, ladder play won't be possible with newer versions of Wesnoth. And that's bad. :P

So, until 1) somebody can assure he/she will maintain the mod and b) the admins of the ladder exist in reality and not only in theory, this discussion is at it's end from my personal point of view.
grrr
Posts: 252
Joined: May 25th, 2007, 9:49 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by grrr »

eyerouge wrote:Agree on all accounts since you're probably correct. Only worry I have with enforcing an un-official mod is the same as I expressed the last time this issue was raised: There must be a guaranteed maintainer of the mod, since if it breaks with revisions to Wesnoth, ladder play won't be possible with newer versions of Wesnoth. And that's bad. :P
1. The RDM add-on already lives in the UMC repo, so it's already possible to have several maintainers (everyone with an UMC account).
2. The password for uploading new versions of the add-on should be shared among ladder players with basic WML knowledge and an UMC account (the latter probably implies the former), as I am not always the fastest to make the required updates (bad luck has it that I also managed to lose the password, but it should not be too hard to get a new one).

I dont like the idea of the ladder becoming dependent on me, although the RDM add-on was made with the ladder in mind. The same spirit was it that brought Doc and me together to make map updates from the dev server available for the stable server (the map updates add-on, also available via the UMC repo), and that add-on is used by many ladder players already.

From a realistic point of view I simply wont have enough time to maintain those add-ons on my own. Those who *want* a better ladder experience and therefore lobby for the RDM add-on should also answer the maintenance question.
User avatar
Rigor
Posts: 941
Joined: September 27th, 2007, 1:40 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Rigor »

its funny how long somebody has to look for a capable ladder admin, maybe describe the job he has to do first and then mention he wont be alone, that might boost the spirit among the community. i remember that there are more guys around in case one of them wants to go on vacation ;)

however i agreed to support the ladder project with my time concerning things that basically everybody could do:

- look at replays (bad behaviour, cheating through chat, etc)
- enforce a better competitive system including: ELO ratings, rules, map updates, and such
- occasional ladder-like tournaments
- miscellaneous design improvements

i think somebody has to make the first step then things get moving :eng:
tsr
Posts: 790
Joined: May 24th, 2006, 1:05 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by tsr »

Ok, one thought:
Proposed announcement wrote: "Sorry we don't know who runs this ladder atm so it has gone out of service.

If you are willing to help contact us on the wesnoth forums (<__ linked to this thread).
/tsr - back to not procrastinating ;)
User avatar
eyerouge
Posts: 380
Joined: June 29th, 2007, 4:37 am
Location: wtactics.org
Contact:

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by eyerouge »

Rigor wrote:its funny how long somebody has to look for a capable ladder admin, maybe describe the job he has to do first and then mention he wont be alone, that might boost the spirit among the community. i remember that there are more guys around in case one of them wants to go on vacation ;)
There's contact email at the footer of the ladder. Use that to contact the admin. If they don't reply however, that's probably just a sign of what I have been saying for over a year in this thread - adminship isn't working. For whatever reason nothing visible has happened in two years time(?) and there is zero to rare admin participation within this thread which is the only official dialogue I know of, short of the rarely updated news section on the site itself.

The problem has mainly been that I "gave away" the ladder to the community in a step do make it legit via the democratical process the preceded it in the elections for admins and that people for various reasons haven't had a chance/interest to act as the admins the community probably expected. When the transition took place I didn't define each admins role - I thought they would do that themself. Today it's evident the transition from me as benevolent dictator to a couple of democratically community elected admins didn't work out due to their lack of presence/info & activity from their behalf. (Read this as my subjective opinion, again - they had no explicit standards or rules/demands to live up to and can't really be blamed for not living up to that ;) )

If you guys wait for wonders keep waiting another 2 years ;) or take actions yourself, as you write below:
however i agreed to support the ladder project with my time concerning things that basically everybody could do:
I have wanted to take care of the whole admin issue myself several times when I've been frustrated but have purposely left it alone since I really lack the democratic authority to do so in theory. It's out of respect for the democratical process that I haven't just appointed new admins and because I don't think a coup de etat would create a legit administration.

I'm also not interested in being or acting as some kind of admin or judge in the matter since I know I can't handle the task due to the WTactics project and other irl stuff. I have however always had access to do pretty much what I want with the ladder but I did nothing except for updating the code at occasion, simply because the community didn't require it and nobody in it was interested in any change or improvement. At least not to the degree where the community actually made any serious demands or attempts to change things. (Muttering or posting ideas in here isn't the same thing. In defence of the admins - from this perspective it's also not strange to grasp the lack of adminship - the community seems to not have required it explicitly... has it? I mean, I am probably one of few that had an opinion about it in this forum...)

Personally I'm at a point where I don't care at all anymore: If a community can't even solve trivial matters like this then so be it. I don't think a community should get more than it deserves, and it deserves nothing which it doesn't create itself in this case.

For me it's apparent that at this point it's not a breach of community democracy to simply appoint new admins (i.e. Rigor & whoever more which seems up to the task, isn't a total stranger on the ladder and has been around long enough for all to know he/she isn't an idiot...) and get it all done with. It would work fine since nobody seems to care and the ladder is a floating ship with a huge enough crew but without a captain. Letting it drift much longer and it would hit something soon enough. The adminship isn't taken from anyone in this case since. It seems to me the positions are open and need filling since they were abandoned.

In any case, I really don't have a say in the matter, at least not anymore than anyone else in here: I'd even go as far as saying I should have less influence than those that are active on the ladder and battling it out in there.
- look at replays (bad behaviour, cheating through chat, etc)
I suggest you don't do that. Sounds very time consuming and needless, unless of course a player asks you to do that with a specific game. Else you'd just end up wasting much life and also end up in situations where you deem somethind as bad behaviour, but none of the players that actually played the game did. ;)
- enforce a better competitive system including: ELO ratings,
ELO rating settings must, as I have written several times, be tweaked in a way which makes the K value higher for the top players and also in a way which stops using the insane protection/provisional system that is currenlty in place (also discussed some posts ago by me). This is easily done from the config file, but again, I lack authority to change anything until community gives it to me or whatever else webmaster the admins will appoint. (I'm not interested in being a webmaster but would gladly assist and help the new one from the start.)
rules, map updates, and such - occasional ladder-like tournaments
Sounds great.
- miscellaneous design improvements
Best way to do that is to contribute to the ladder code directly (link in my signature), else the changes would be overwritten with the next ladder code update. Currently the active developer of the ladder is tesafilmschen.
i think somebody has to make the first step then things get moving :eng:
Whenever and however the community settles stuff it should contact tesa - he has the ability to give people adminship.
User avatar
Rigor
Posts: 941
Joined: September 27th, 2007, 1:40 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Rigor »

me as benevolent dictator
keep up the good work! in some situations a democracy doesnt work as efficient as this form of government but dont get me wrong here please :mrgreen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship
ave dictator eyerouge, morituri te salutant :twisted:
The adminship isn't taken from anyone in this case since. It seems to me the positions are open and need filling since they were abandoned. [...] If a community can't even solve trivial matters like this then so be it. I don't think a community should get more than it deserves, and it deserves nothing which it doesn't create itself in this case.
we know that, and now that we start caring we deserve something better.
Quote:
- look at replays (bad behaviour, cheating through chat, etc)


I suggest you don't do that. Sounds very time consuming and needless, unless of course a player asks you to do that with a specific game.
yes thats right and i assume that those things wont happen very often, thats why i agree to do that in the first place. however if those things should be left untouched there might be some problems sooner or later.
K value higher for the top players and also in a way which stops using the insane protection/provisional system that is currenlty in place (also discussed some posts ago by me)
actually we were discussing those things with u [insert months back in time here] - i know what im talking about 8)
Whenever and however the community settles stuff it should contact tesa - he has the ability to give people adminship.
ill do that as soon as i see him round
silent
Posts: 244
Joined: February 20th, 2009, 5:53 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by silent »

Eskon wrote:http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=28444

Rigor and Quetzalcoatl made a suggestion regarding the ladder which I think deserves to be discussed here: Namely, to amend the ladder rules to enforce the usage of the "Random Map"-addon made by grrr.

An inherent weakness of a competitive environment with a ranking system is that players will tend to play for their rating as their major goal, which means they will do everything they can to improve their chances of winning. When given a choice, they will make the one that they consider to give them the greatest chances.

The system, as it is, favors map specialization over "allround" ability. Many people do play on unfamiliar maps due to either boredom, lack of alternatives, or a feeling that one should be willing to face others, but always in the knowledge that their rating will suffer if they do so compared to just continuing to play the favored maps. The result of this is that some maps get so little play on the ladder that they simply just don't factor in the ranking score. The top players might be genuine allround Wesnoth masters, but some might be ranked as high as they are simply because they are good on the maps they choose to play; if they played against another player, ranked dozens of places below but with more "allround" experience, on a map they do not know, they would likely end up losing. Only, they never will, because it would screw their ladder rating, and they don't have to.

Changing to enforced random maps would have several benefits: First, it would increase the size of the playing field, widen the scope of the game and reward adaptiveness and allround Wesnoth experience more, making the game more interesting. Second, it would provide more replays for the less played maps, improving statistical analysis and possibly assisting in balance. Third and most importantly, it would mean that everyone the ladder actually plays the same game.

There are disadvantages. People would lose the ability to face each other in ladder matches on previously agreed maps. I don't really see this as a problem; the ladder doesn't exist solely for their benefit. Players can freely play non-ladder matches instead. Players don't like to be forced into playing conditions; but I think the ladder should not shy away from doing so if it leads to overall benefit.
Hmm probably should've replied earlier to this, but oh well, I do disagree with this to some extent.

Your first point eskon I wouldn't consider a weakness, rather it would be a strength, I'd feel, to use it as an indicator, which I believe most players would be playing for, as to where they think they stand amongst those who choose to competitively play.

While it may seem people specialize on a map, why should they not, I ask? It might seem they do not have this "allround" ability, but the bottom line is they are still very good opponents to face, admittedly in their preferred environment, and maybe with a preferred faction as well, but if you did try to face them, I would imagine you would find it, normally, quite a challenge, and thus beneficial for you to face. If they are preying deliberately on the lower ranked to increase their rating, so be it. It might not seem nice, but at the end of the day, it's up to players to identify a fellow competitor, and whether to accept their challenge or not.

I will use myself as an example, though I may not be the best for this. I will normally join a ladder game only as player 2, whether it's open invite or asked, except in the following circumstances
-I join a game with the random mod (rare, due to the fact I prefer to use the standard timer, though I may make an exception)
-Someone asks me to set up the game, normally due to a rematch (though for some reason, I normally pick weldyn channel if this happens...)
-On very rare occasions, the game I join is set up so I am player 1.
While I admit this backfires badly at times (I still have very little clue as to how to properly counter a grunt-rush if I'm not loyalists), I feel this actually improves me as a player to actually beat someone on their preferred map, as this increases the difficulty for me, and feels...I suppose rewarding considering player 1 can have an advantage, though this has been balanced out (e.g, the already taken village).

To your advantages you pointed out eskon, for the first one, I disagree. People are quite happy to simply play on one map for ages, essentially finding themselves a niche in the game. Those who play survivals, colusseum, and even some of the stronger ladder players (lich king, I think, would be one example).

Secondly, as for balance, I do see merit here, since to balance each individual map they'd required many, many replays to even gain some idea. I suppose one could argue though, that if they cared enough about this map in particular, they would raise the issue themselves and some idea as to why, and how it could be balanced (I think the old hornshark Island, before 1.6 revision, was a case, due to vampire bats)

Your third point I don't really understand your argument here. What exactly do you mean the same game? At the end of the day, you play with the default faction, 70% xp, on a map defined as acceptable for the ladder system. Even if this was enforced, you would still get different games due to differences in timer.

My thoughts, and hopefully an ok argument against.
User avatar
Rigor
Posts: 941
Joined: September 27th, 2007, 1:40 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Rigor »

i came, joined the the gna page to improve the game, and improved it. heres what i submitted:

https://gna.org/bugs/?15798

lets hope that it will be easy enough to do. i think after having a nice talk with tesa ill make it obligatory with a third-page-website to play ladder games ASAP with a random p1 / p2 assignment. this page is exactely what i was looking for: http://www.randomresult.com/ try it yourself! until no better solution is available well use this one.
User avatar
neki
Posts: 273
Joined: April 5th, 2009, 4:56 pm
Location: Your nightmares

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by neki »

Hi!

I am pretty sure this is my first post on this forum, and it is because of Rigor's "Rules update p1/p2". In my opinion it's complicated and no fun. I am in favour of random maps, random starting positions, I am almost always playing grrr's random extension, but this is too complicated! We already have ladder.subversiva.org as a third party website, why do we need the 4th party (so to call it) http://www.randomresult.com/ ? If I were a wesnoth player, trying to start playing ladder, it will discourage me for sure, too many headakes to start a single ladder game...
User avatar
Quetzalcoatl
Posts: 207
Joined: March 18th, 2009, 3:26 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Quetzalcoatl »

Rigor wrote:i came, joined the the gna page to improve the game, and improved it. heres what i submitted:

https://gna.org/bugs/?15798
This is very nice feature request and if it will be implemented it can be worth to be considered as default setting for 1v1 maps I think (or all maps where each team consists of one player).
Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.
User avatar
Rigor
Posts: 941
Joined: September 27th, 2007, 1:40 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Rigor »

maybe it was just hard the first time to try it eh ? :mrgreen: how long did it take?

i will tell you the reason why we dont just stick to grrrs mod:
I dont like the idea of the ladder becoming dependent on me, although the RDM add-on was made with the ladder in mind.
the mod will not be maintained forever - and that means: if nobody will update it to 1.8, 1.8.1, 1.8.2, ... then we wont be able to use it as a ladder rule. depending on how interested or motivated the devs are to implement my feature request, it is meant to replace that rule sooner or later.

however thumbs up for your initiative, neki, for taking part in the discussion!
Post Reply