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
Faello
Posts: 441
Joined: June 7th, 2005, 9:01 am
Location: Holy Office

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Faello »

Dauntless wrote: …and please keep your minds clear and open – Faello, nani, and Doc are 3 of the most amazing people around, it would be a big loss to lose any of them due to some internal conflict…
Rest assured D. I'm not interested in entering into any conflict neither with Doc nor nani :wink: I respect their contribution to wesnoth (nani as top wesnoth player atm and Doc as strong player and creative developer), I may sound stucked up or rigid, but I didn't enter this discussion just for sake of arguing.

Wesnoth ladder is a great project, something that keeps people interested in wesnoth atm and having multiple accounts can kind of water down this effect and affect the level of interest in it thus also the level of competition on the ladder itself - some of you feel it too, thus the amount of mixed comments. I think that especially top wesnoth players should understand why keeping ladder ranking as objective as it is possible, benefits them.
Dauntless wrote: P.S.: Rigor, i think that a link from the main ladder site here would be certainly better than a link to a weird poll with weird possible answers. And marking leo down without giving it a second thought seems very rash. Remember how you felt about the neki ban from Noy. Considering that leo voluntarily stepped up by confessing and being the only one punished among many, including former ladder admins and myself doesnt really seem fair... :(
Seconded. leocrotta shouldn't be punished - this issue is much bigger than just him using 2 accounts, since the rule couldn't and can't be forced efficiently anyway. Only efficient way to get rid of second-accounts is to appeal to the players common sense and spirit of fair play. Punishing the person that could be used as an example in this situation is a mistake and leads to nowhere...
The yellow jester does not play
but gently pulls the strings
and smiles as the puppets dance
in the court of the Crimson King.
Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 3991
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Velensk »

I dont agree here Velensk.
If the second account has a fairly constant elo, it indicates fairly constant play at that level. Or oscilating but with the center there. A 1900ish player is 1900ish no matter if its a first or second account...
The player doesnt risk more - if the B account were stronger than rated, it would rise steadily in elo.
Both accounts are the same player, therefore both accounts represent the same amount of real skill. The accounts do not ever have separate skills even if one of them is only used when the player is not playing his best. However, because an account can be rated below a players real skill it can still entail a different amount of risk.

Assuming that your two accounts are not rated about the same, then the amount of points I would risk/win for beating you in a ladder game would be dependent on which account you would choose to log in on. This makes very little sense to me as either way I'm fighting you; I'm winning or losing against the same person yet you have some kind of power over how much it is credited for? If the two accounts are rated about the same, then that is a very good demonstration that you don't need two of them and aside it bloats the ladder and makes it harder to tell who is truly in fourth place if the top five slots are actually held by three people.

About the only time I'd see a second account as being legitimate is if you're playing it with a artificial set of rules place on you which you adhere to which have a direct gameplay effect rather than a metagame effect (such as distraction). Hodor would be an example of this as he stuck to the outlaw only rule and playing him would be more than just superficially different than playing his owners normal account however ultimately this is messy and I think it's better to avoid making rules to account for this kind of thing because again, it would be near impossible to enforce. Ladder is there for competitive play presumably with a level of seriousness to it. If you're going to do something like Hodor in that kind of environment you ought to either be using it because you believe that it is effective, be willing to adapt if it is not working, or be ready to lose with it and let it affect your overall standing as whenever someone plays with you, there is that 'chance' that you will decide to go Hodor, or all drake gliders, or all ulfserkers and give them an easy win (well, assuming they can deal with it, fighting Hodor may not be an easy win depending). Probably better to get the impulse to do that kind of thing out of you when you're not on ladder but it is your choice.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
User avatar
Paxe
Posts: 34
Joined: January 14th, 2008, 9:02 am
Location: Madrid

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Paxe »

Faello wrote:Guys...

Did anybody hear about Kramnik, Kasparov or Karpov playing under different names in the chess tournaments?

No.

Just cut the crap and send Rigor your second accounts to delete & don't do it ever again.

Good night everybody
Do not want to speak about the multiple consecuences of having different accounts... Just want to support this Faello statement.

And want to say this is not a punishment is best decition to be taken. A punishment would be not to allow this multple ladder account guys to play anymore a ladder game.

Choose your prefer account and inform the administrators to delete the other. (Please, keep the games to be download by anyone, most of them are nice games) ;)

Sincerely

Paxe
Best computer game ever played?...... Wesnoth, The Battle for Wesnoth, of course!
User avatar
nani
Posts: 111
Joined: March 12th, 2009, 10:43 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by nani »

Dauntless wrote:And marking leo down without giving it a second thought seems very rash.
Faello wrote:Punishing the person that could be used as an example in this situation is a mistake and leads to nowhere...
Well you should learn that this is the way rigorous Rigor deals with things.
Imho abusing his little powers, shouting it from the rooftops, pretty expected.
What we need is ...
Faello wrote:common sense
Kanapka
Posts: 130
Joined: May 15th, 2010, 2:15 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Kanapka »

I have a feeling that multiple accout problem is not a problem on it's own, but it's caused by something else: some players treat ladder not as a ranking system, but as a way to find a skilled opponent (or an opponent of a similar skill). This results in players who care about rating but want to play some casual games sometimes having more than one account - I'm a medicore player, but sometimes I'm frustrated about playing a new player for an hour or so when the outcome is certain, but I don't want to just dc on him - I think this is much more painful when you're a top10 or top 20 player and you can defeat most of regular server players without much strain (I remeber a game vs Pionsix <i think it was mentioned that it's an alias of a top player>: it was 15 turns of me being beat up and outmanuvered before I surrendered, no fun for me and most probably no fun for him).

There were some players saying straight up that they don't care about the rating and play just to get good opponents (I think Ook did this) - given that most of the good players play ranked games, and there's at most 15 very good players at a time on server and of what I read here they want to play ranked games, what are the chances that one of the ~200 players will be a good challenge to a good player?

I think punishing nani will do no good, especially if more top players will come in his defense and/or confess to having more than one account - if they get banned (and possibly quit Wesnoth) we weak players are deprived of good quality games to watch and learn from.

I think it's a problem of human nature clashing with ranking systems - people in general want to be recognised as good, and as long as they believe they're not cheating they may unintetnionally harm the ranking system - I'm not expert enough to say if multiple accounts do this, and some people reason they don't.

Oh, and let's say there's player X rated 2000, and it's his only account he plays for casual play and for serious gaming. Of course when he's playing casual he's not that concentrated and plays weaker (let's say of a level of 1900) and when he's concentraded (2100) he plays better. So if someone beats the 'concentrated player' he's getting/losing more/less points than he should have - how's that different from losing/winnig to/over a 'casual account' of some player except for the amount of points (probably less than ten)?

I would also like to remind that ladder FAQ links to a page that says that (consious) cheaters will quit the game pretty quickly and there's neither point nor a way to catch them (if they're good enough). So the only way of getting rid of multiple accounts (it was mentioned that some players secretly have them) is explicitly prooving that they are harmful to the ranking system, which has not be done yet.
User avatar
Doc Paterson
Drake Cartographer
Posts: 1973
Joined: February 21st, 2005, 9:37 pm
Location: Kazakh
Contact:

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Doc Paterson »

Faello wrote:
Dauntless wrote: …and please keep your minds clear and open – Faello, nani, and Doc are 3 of the most amazing people around, it would be a big loss to lose any of them due to some internal conflict…
Rest assured D. I'm not interested in entering into any conflict neither with Doc nor nani :wink: I respect their contribution to wesnoth (nani as top wesnoth player atm and Doc as strong player and creative developer), I may sound stucked up or rigid, but I didn't enter this discussion just for sake of arguing.
All is well. I just got a little annoyed with what I perceived as the oversimplification of a very complex issue; use of terms like "cheating," etc, and the rigid binding of "ladder rules" to actual right-and-wrong morality. I'm absolutely with Dauntless on this particular point, that
Dauntless wrote: I think that the harmfulmess should be in question, not the fact, that it is against the rules.
Anyways, it would take more than this little squabble to drive me away. (Take a look at all of these battle scars that I have from 6 plus years of forum battles! :P)

Faello and I will just agree to disagree I think. Besides, he got me with the "No I'm not...YOU ARE!" argument, and I was once told by a kung-fu master that such a technique is uncounterable. ;)
I will not tell you my corner / where threads don't get locked because of mostly no reason /
because I don't want your hostile disease / to spread all over the world.
I prefer that corner to remain hidden /
without your noses.
-Nosebane, Sorcerer Supreme
WhiteMage
Posts: 21
Joined: August 24th, 2010, 3:08 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by WhiteMage »

Wow, what an extensive discussion and still not touching on the real issues!

First, regarding SalsaRocoto’s comment about people’s account being epidemic of aliases:

Tahargl: 1711, 15 games 12 wins
GodOfWar : 1711, 15 games 11 wins
DrakeLord : 1776, 16 games 11 wins
Exper: 1788, 39 games 29 wins
Kabuto: 1800, 15 games 15 wins
arbu: 1820, 30 games 23 wins
kodoku: 1833, 22 games 19 wins
pumpkin: 1851, 21 games 19 wins
Rene: 1879, 31 games 26 wins

The observation maybe correct, but declaring that “Nobody in his right mind would think those are new ladder players” is an overstatement. Many players can be already good players when they join ladder. I played non-ladder for over 6 months for example, so I may have been a veteran non-ladder player when I joined. I must be lucky that I got a +13 streak only after you listed these players or I would be on your list too. Thank you for spanking me on my very first ladder. I tried to win, but maybe I should have tried to lose to avoid being listed here. You started a great discussion though, for which I give you credit.

Second, the question that multiple accounts should be allowed or not:
It seems that we divide basically into 2 camps. Those who wouldn’t mind (probably they already do it anyway) and those who do mind (those of us who have not done it yet and are fiercely against it, such as myself). I would never do it, because it does not satisfy any of my needs. Knowing that others do it lowers my interest to a minimum in playing ladder.

Third, and most important: what to do about it? Can this issue be improved (not solved) somehow? The answer is yes! Here are just a few ideas without extensive deliberation:
1: Similar to the old church splits that happened in history, divide the ladder into two: the old non-enforceable, casual social, but competitive play and a new, and maximally competitive ladder. As bad as it will be to lose many players, there will be the reward of a community for each camp where these philosophies will not collide. I for one, would prefer to be in the new one.

2: For the new ladder community, attempt to enforce non-duplicate accounts by requiring real first name + real last name + real physical location specific to a township and country. Those people who do not want to provide can play on the old ladder, where the multiple accounts will continue to be a problem. Those of us (including myself) who do not mind giving real name and real location (subject to some level of random verification) can have a much lower likelihood of being exposed to a myriad of duplicates (and other problems). Is this such a big problem? Why is it not a problem in chess, tennis, golf, etc.? They usually play with real name, and most importantly they don’t have duplicates and they do not start over their Elo points when they feel like it. This does not mean making the names public, but known to some entity.

3: Make all games a mandatory upload, which will undergo a semi-random reality check (focusing on high Elo accounts and fast rising account), where the amount of time to play a game and the “seriousness” of the moves will be assessed. This is hard to do, but will be used as a deterrent from playing fake accounts. Suspected account will be required to play against random, but specific players for actual skill assessment (much like a tournament). Consistently refusing to play is automatic ban. Even regular players will be required once in a while to play against specific opponents or from a set of 5 opponents, who will not have a time, etc. conflict.

4: Make it harder to rise up in status, so it will take longer time for new accounts to come up. This will make it more laborious to level up new accounts, so the payoff will be later. For example, lower the starting Elo to 1300 points, and halve the Elo points gathered by a win for first 20 games. Continue to take away quarter points for losing from Active ranked players, but for 20 games.

5. Future solution, for which technology exist, but is not easy to employ here yet will be biometrics. How about a 4 second voice identification by player reading a random text given by the computer, so it can’t be prerecorded by the player? Well, I am no lawyer, but I am sure they do some kind of ID checking in many places already and biometrics will be the future.

Summary: although the problem may be hard to fix, it can be improved tremendously and it is all up to the ladder admins to do so, to which hereby I volunteer to contribute, since my interest to play just decreased. The system is already outstanding, that’s why we are playing here. Problems were identified, now it is time for solution (not simple bans). Without that, we are likely to lose many potential players here as masses do not follow the stated rules. With no solutions many players will walk away and search for other games, which is increasingly easy to find today.

Thank you Leocrotta for admitting your dupe account. Although I disagree with multiple accounts, I appreciate you showing us the “tip of the iceberg”, which cries out for a solution, and not for a simple ban of a single offender. I personally feel that we lose too much if Leocrotta really leaves ladder, but maybe a new cleaner ladder system can emerge from all this discussion. If not, then the original Wesnoth developers are right that Wesnoth does not support official ladder, which was so PAINFUL for me to read at first.
nebula955
Posts: 82
Joined: March 1st, 2007, 2:33 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by nebula955 »

^Seriously? I think you fail to understand that Wesnoth is a computer game. The Ladder does not make Wesnoth-its main purpose is still IMO to facilitate competitive matches between similarly leveled players. The ranking gimmick is cool, but you should realize that people who make multiple accounts don't necessarily care about points in a random game with no serious rewards as much as you think they do. Comparing it with Chess/Tennis/Etc. is lame...do you seriously see any similarity between the two besides the fact that they use ELO and is multiplayer? Really? Compare it to other computer games, and you'll realize that everyone aliases. Your ideas 2-5 are just so idiotic...are you trying to kill Wesnoth or are you trolling?
ezysquire
Posts: 26
Joined: July 16th, 2007, 7:29 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by ezysquire »

nani wrote: And even if I might be missed, I would like to end this case on my own by stopping to play ladder (and in my case that means wesnoth) forever, instead of being pilloried in red. :)
Any decision that turns away a wesnoth stalwart/top tier player is a poor decision.

Before banning a player of nani's ilk, is it not better to discuss and find a better way?

Ladder is not the be-all-and-end-all of wesnoth and it is a shame when the game's community cannot find a better outcome than this.
Gallifax
Posts: 131
Joined: October 23rd, 2006, 5:36 pm
Location: Who cares?

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Gallifax »

Hi all,

we know the issue that new players start ladder and then start over , because their stats/reputation looks so bad.

Some people look too much for overall winning percentage as well I think.

Maybe that could be changed if additionally a pecentage of won games for the past 2 months or 3 or whatever would be shown, shows improvment too.


Just a thought that crossed my mind...
Huumy
Posts: 292
Joined: October 15th, 2009, 9:52 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Huumy »

I'm bit slow so could some1 explain to me what's the problem having 2 accounts if you don't play account 1 vs account 2, or account 2 is not used to snipe high level players ratings?

My point is there is no difference for me as a player even if player X is the best wesnoth player ever and he has top 10 accounts of the ladder very close to each other in points (with no games played vs each other) and I play one of these accounts on ladder, I am playing vs a player with a rating X it doesn't matter who that player is or how many accounts he has. Same applies if player X the best player ever has a account which he plays less serious and has lower ranking it really don't matter who's the player is only the skill level which the player is playing.

So anyway besides the thing that there's a rule that players can't have more than 1 account I don't see any reason why players aren't allowed to have more than 1 account.
"And the girl that you want is directly out in front, And she’s waving her caboose at you, You sneeze achoo, She calls you out and boom!"
The offspring, trolling you since forever.
Dreadnough
Posts: 55
Joined: March 7th, 2010, 1:01 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Dreadnough »

Hey

I am an admin on another, DotA related page. I someone breaks a rule there he will get a small punishment and eventually get temporary banned. Of course Multiaccounts are forbidden, you just could play on your second account while the first is banned and dodge the ban this way.

Since we do not really have any kind of punishment here there is no real reason to forbid multiaccounts. Of course, as you already mentioned, having multiple accounts result in some problems. But those problems shouldn't be to hard to handle.

What we really shouldn't do here is banning players with more than one account. This will result in one of two options, both are really bad for the Ladder of Wesnoth.
a)The banned player will just create a new account. There is no way to proof if it is a new player or an old player. So we have another low point account who will just dominate some games, insteat of having one or more high point accounts.
b)The Ladder of Wesnoth Community isn't that big and we can not reall effort to loose the top rated players (or even any player really).

What we could do is just ask the players to be honest, tell us all of their accounts and ban all accounts but their best.


But in my opinion there is even a better solution, which requieres some coding. Don't know if we have this option.

People are allowed to create more than one account (maybe we should set a limit, but this can be discussed later). But if they do so they have to mark their second account. So everyone can see if this account is a second one and decide if he wants to play against it - or not.

You could even add more features, some examples.
-You have to enter the name of your main account at your second one.
-Players can manage their accounts and decide (once a month or so) which one shall be their main one / the account with the most points is always the main account.
- If you play against a second account you will win/loose the points as if you play against the main account (if the name of the main was entered) or you will loose less points than normal (if the name of the main account wasn't entered).

If you think about it just for a short period of time you will end up with a solution without loosing players.


Just for the record, this is my only account, and will be my only account forever. I am very disappointed that there are so many (top rated) players who own more than one account. If I win against a top rated player it is something quite special for me. If I just knew that I already bet leocrotta some while ago on his alias Demogorgon it would have felt so great, anyway, in the meantime leo himself died as well. I just can not understand why you ever would create more than one account, thats like playing without honor.

Mit freundlichsten Grüßen
Dreadnough

BTW: I really think at least leocrotta should be unbanned for now, at least until this situation is settled and we came to a final solution.
User avatar
pauxlo
Posts: 1047
Joined: September 19th, 2006, 8:54 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by pauxlo »

I see some ways to "cheat" with multiple accounts, i.e. manipulate the ranking or rating of the main account:
  • The most obvious one: Play your main account against the helping accounts, or even report fake games which did not really happen. (Careful cheaters will avoid this).
  • What Huumy named snipe other high-level players: Play with your lower rated account against high-level players, dragging them down in case of your win (and not giving them much in the case of your loose).
  • Only sniping will not work on longer time (if you don't create new accounts regularly), since your lower account will go up in rating.
    Thus when your rating got too to effectively snipe, play some games badly against bad players (to push up their rating), then play again against them with your higher level account (and win mostly), taking the new points from them away (and help your main account).
  • And, of course, the ranking will be less meaningful if the top ten places are only three people (a bit exaggerated).
These will work better if there is only a small number of players (and games) at all.

But, there is no way to really (surely) recognize and avoid such cheating, if you don't want to go the strict way sketched by WhiteMage. (And even then you can't be completely sure.)


For the record: I have no ladder account at all, and I'm not likely to create one in the nearer future. I'm only theoretically interested in this.
Kolbur
Posts: 122
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 9:33 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Kolbur »

Any suggestion that requires modification of the current ladder in some way is not a realistic one as long as you don't do it yourself or get someone else to do it since we don't have an active developer at the moment. The only things that can be changed with common consensus are the rules and even these can't be changed officially on the site's FAQ without a developer...
So yeah, please don't suggest that if you don't have someone who can actually realise it. ;)
Huumy wrote:I'm bit slow so could some1 explain to me what's the problem having 2 accounts if you don't play account 1 vs account 2, or account 2 is not used to snipe high level players ratings?

My point is there is no difference for me as a player even if player X is the best wesnoth player ever and he has top 10 accounts of the ladder very close to each other in points (with no games played vs each other) and I play one of these accounts on ladder, I am playing vs a player with a rating X it doesn't matter who that player is or how many accounts he has. Same applies if player X the best player ever has a account which he plays less serious and has lower ranking it really don't matter who's the player is only the skill level which the player is playing.

So anyway besides the thing that there's a rule that players can't have more than 1 account I don't see any reason why players aren't allowed to have more than 1 account.
It was already explained multiple times now how using 2 or more accounts makes a difference even if you don't cheat with them outright (see my first post or Velensk's or Faello's posts). I would like to hear from you and all other with a similar opinion why this doesn't matter (other than "I don't care"). This seems to be the major argument against the current rules anyway, a lot of people just don't care about them. Well that's their right and all but I find this pretty disappointing to be honest and from the standpoint of ladder administration it's a very undesireable situation. I would like to hear how the rules could be improved if you think they are wrong and why the people who do actually care about the current rules (as you can see if you follow the thread there are quite a number of them) should change their opinion. There were a few arguments so far but honestly I found Velensk's rebuttals much more convincing.

PS: The current rules regarding multiple accounts could actually be enforced more rigorously ( :lol2: ) by admins other than painting someone red...
User avatar
Doc Paterson
Drake Cartographer
Posts: 1973
Joined: February 21st, 2005, 9:37 pm
Location: Kazakh
Contact:

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Doc Paterson »

Incidentally, I find it very funny that all of this was sparked by the KOTF Awards Ceremony. ;)
I will not tell you my corner / where threads don't get locked because of mostly no reason /
because I don't want your hostile disease / to spread all over the world.
I prefer that corner to remain hidden /
without your noses.
-Nosebane, Sorcerer Supreme
Post Reply