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
nani
Posts: 111
Joined: March 12th, 2009, 10:43 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by nani »

Insinuator wrote:Just because something beneficial (attention drawn to multi-aliases) comes from something wrong (cheating)
Get it please:
Faello wrote:As I've already said, using multiple accounts isn't cheating, but a common rule breach...
Insinuator wrote:PLUS it gives the genuinely new person a wrong impression that this is the type of skill level they should expect from a beginner Ladder player.
Starting Ladder doesn't mean starting with wesnoth 1v1 in general. The intention of provisionally ranked players is: You don't know about their skill yet. Everyone, even the other new ladder-players have to deal with that anyways.
Insinuator wrote:And don't even try to argue that they don't play against weaker players! I checked the top ten, and all of them played a majority of their games against underrated players, in some cases nearly 70%!
Do me a favor and count Demogorgon out here explicitly, would you? I'd love to read that, just because... :mrgreen:
Insinuator wrote:
Cackfiend wrote:pretty ridiculous that nani's main account isnt unblocked yet. im dissapointed in you rigor
Dude, you do know that Nani stated he's ok with it, don't you?
Kind of, yes, according to Rigor's plan, I got treated better due to confession, but let's wait... :)
Insinuator
Posts: 706
Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Insinuator »

nani wrote:
Insinuator wrote:And don't even try to argue that they don't play against weaker players! I checked the top ten, and all of them played a majority of their games against underrated players, in some cases nearly 70%!
Do me a favor and count Demogorgon out here explicitly, would you? I'd love to read that, just because... :mrgreen:
Ugh, get over yourself already. :roll: The_Black_Sword actually has the highest percentage of games versus underrated players.
nani wrote:
Faello wrote:As I've already said, using multiple accounts isn't cheating, but a common rule breach...
I don't care what Faello thinks cheating is. He's wrong. This is the dictionary's definition of cheating: "to violate rules or regulations".
nani wrote:Starting Ladder doesn't mean starting with wesnoth 1v1 in general. The intention of provisionally ranked players is: You don't know about their skill yet. Everyone, even the other new ladder-players have to deal with that anyways.
But when you create a second account, you DO know your skill level! You've demonstrated it with your last account and you can use that knowledge against other players who can't tell!
Scatha
Posts: 111
Joined: March 29th, 2008, 2:55 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Scatha »

Insinuator wrote:And don't even try to argue that they don't play against weaker players! I checked the top ten, and all of them played a majority of their games against underrated players, in some cases nearly 70%!
Err, "underrated" is not at all the same as "weaker". A player is underrated if their ELO rating is lower than it should be. For the sake of your own ELO rating, playing against underrated players is bad and playing against overrated players is good.
But when you create a second account, you DO know your skill level! You've demonstrated it with your last account and you can use that knowledge against other players who can't tell!
I don't really see how you can "use that knowledge", but I'd appreciate it if you could explain. I'll just note that while you're provisional in your rating (first few games) other people stand to lose very little by playing against you.
Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 3991
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Velensk »

What is more, if you are the top ranked player, then 100% of your games will be against underrated players.

The only reason that the person at the very top of the list would have any games against people ranked below him would be that he played games before he was at the top of the list.

You would have to be very, selective to be in the top 10 and not play most of your games against underrated players. Personally, I don't see the point in being that selective in any sense.
"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."
Dauntless
TGT Champion
Posts: 196
Joined: October 14th, 2008, 10:16 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Dauntless »

just wanted to comment on that too :)
As velensk says, its quite hard to play vs "overrated" players when you are on the top ;)
Scatha
Posts: 111
Joined: March 29th, 2008, 2:55 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Scatha »

Sorry, I think I didn't explain this very well in my post just now. Being underrated has nothing to do with being weaker. If a strong player joins the ladder then they might have a real strength of 2000, say; until they get up to that they will be underrated. Vice-versa if a weak player joins the ladder and has a real strength of 1200 then from their starting point at 1500 until they get down to 1200 they will be overrated.

(Edit: apart from that the point Velensk and Dauntless is making is a good one, of course -- it just isn't actually relevant here because the statistic Insinuator found wasn't what he or she insinuated it was.)
Dauntless
TGT Champion
Posts: 196
Joined: October 14th, 2008, 10:16 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Dauntless »

You are right Scatha, however in the Opposition table on the ladder site the terms underrated and overrated are used in the way Insinuator used them, that is people with lower/higher elo than you, so I stuck to the terms and just put them into " " to make it more clear...
Scatha
Posts: 111
Joined: March 29th, 2008, 2:55 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Scatha »

Dauntless: I'll have egg on my face over this if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that that page of the ladder uses them in the way that I describe, not the way Insinuator uses them. Off to bed now, so I can't provide evidence, but have a look at which players were underrated/overrated and I think you'll see it can't be the meaning you think.

Edit: OK, if you want to look at the strength of their opposition, look at the average ELO points the players won/lost for a victory/defeat. Unsurprisingly (for the reasons you and Velensk point out) the top players played against on average weaker players, by a sizeable but generally not a huge margin.
User avatar
nani
Posts: 111
Joined: March 12th, 2009, 10:43 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by nani »

Insinuator wrote:I don't care what Faello thinks cheating is. He's wrong. This is the dictionary's definition of cheating: "to violate rules or regulations".
"Cheating refers to the breaking of rules to gain advantage in a competitive situation." - Wikipedia
I don't see where I can get advantage while breaking this so called "rule" the way I did. (No need to start a vicious circle here...)
Playing Wesnoth without fog would be such an advantage while breaking a rule of the game itself e.g.
Insinuator wrote:But when you create a second account, you DO know your skill level! You've demonstrated it with your last account and you can use that knowledge against other players who can't tell!
Who cares if I know, we were talking about the others who shouldn't expect to know their enemy's ranking.
I can use this knowledge? :lol2: For what? Stealing points from others maybe? Must've done that quite uneffective...
Being provisional, the enemy's didn't lose many points, and afterwards, I think I had a record that didn't allow me to mislead anyone.

We should stop arguing here since it obviously doesn't lead to anything.
I think I can safely claim you wouldn't even admit if I was correct after failing my little test:
You couldn't just say: Yes, you're right, Demo wasn't like this, no, instead you preferred browsing the database for probably the only one with a higher percentage of games vs underrated players.

Useless discussion, it'll never end, I should be out as well.
User avatar
Rigor
Posts: 941
Joined: September 27th, 2007, 1:40 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Rigor »

ill tell u a little story now. today i woke up early, went to work, worked. then i found it was such a beautiful weather outside that it would be great to go to the beach i have now that i am abroad. after coming back from the beach i had an incredibly tasty dinner with my new friends from the dorm and my belly was about to burst. when i came back to my room it was very,very,very late already and i turned on the computer to check out the progress of this discussion. my plans for tomorrow? im going to wake up early,...

i would like to come to the most interesting part now because i am waiting and waiting...and it is not going to happen it seems. you know, i learned from experience that its a better idea to let the other guy say something first, but if you decide to just play dead, or avoid the topic, this is also an answer for me. and please dont tell me some real life events keep YOU busy, when i am writing at such a late hour during working days only to get it finally over with.

HINTS:

Crendgrim wrote:However, I really think that players like leocrotta or Dauntless (just to name famous ones, everything said here also applies to all other ladder players) would certainly reveal their aliases (as they already did in this thread), because I also expect them to want to create a nice ladder atmosphere (which isn't possible if you don't say who you are and someone discovers the use of the alias...).
Huumy wrote:I'm favor of Rigors 2 ladders and public aliases.
Shagal wrote:I'm super curious.

Dauntless, what is your alias?

[...] Another question is crossing my mind, too. Who of you did discuss with his alias here?
Faello wrote:Just cut the crap and send Rigor your second accounts to delete & don't do it ever again.
Kolbur wrote:It's not really easy to 100% confirm that 2 accounts belong to the same player. So the admins can't just run around and paint everyone red who could be an alias...
thefish wrote:hope the other players with aliases confess and we discover the other ones.
Dreadnough wrote: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.
Gallifax wrote:Spot on, on all accounts!
TBS wrote:Your idea seems quite good to me, it's essentially disclosing which accounts are aliases, which I said I am for.
you just say "i have one alias but im not telling" and thats it, you kidding me? everybody else doing this kind of thing before you had the same choice, tell or dont, some with exciting public viewing (soul_steven), some none at all (neki) - what i would prefer to do is to just hear from you very soon which one (or 10, very funny Q) you use and then act accordingly. until then i dont see a reason why you should be able to continue playing as if nothing happened. could you alias-players please stop playing ladder games until this matter is resolved?
Insinuator
Posts: 706
Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Insinuator »

Scatha wrote:A player is underrated if their ELO rating is lower than it should be.
You're right in a general sense but wrong in a technical sense. The statistic for playing against "Underrated" players merely rates one player's elo versus another's. Thus, a player with 2000 elo playing versus one with 1900 is playing an "Underrated" player. If the 2000 elo player then plays a 2100 player, he'd be playing against an "Overrated" player. Simple as that.
Scatha wrote:
But when you create a second account, you DO know your skill level! You've demonstrated it with your last account and you can use that knowledge against other players who can't tell!
I don't really see how you can "use that knowledge", but I'd appreciate it if you could explain. I'll just note that while you're provisional in your rating (first few games) other people stand to lose very little by playing against you.
Ok, another illustration using a fictitious Ladder player named Roy: Roy plays Ladder for 3 years and gets up to 2150 elo. Now, he grows tired of playing that account for whatever reason and decides to create a new one. This account, named Cheeta, is a provisional account starting with 1500 elo. Now, another player, little Johnny, decides that it's high time he joins the Ladder. He's played Isar's Cross :mrgreen: for a few months and shows quite the aptitude. So he joins and starts with 1500 elo.

Now Cheeta is a Ladder veteran with a very low elo account. He spies little Johnny's game and notices he's a new player. Looking for an easy boost to his ego, he beats Johnny in several games, improving his elo by leaps and bounds without much effort. Now normally, little Johnny might object to playing a 2150 elo player. He's a modest guy and prefers to play with those of a similar skill set. So he doesn't object to playing Cheeta. Is it fair to Johnny that Cheeta is deliberately misrepresenting his skill? Does it matter to Johnny that the Ladder will "balance" itself out eventually?

That is one way to "use your knowledge" to gain elo quickly and easily. And it is damaging, particularly to new players.
Kolbur
Posts: 122
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 9:33 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Kolbur »

I just want drop in that Insinuator is wrong and Scatha is right about "underrated" in the opposition table of the player profile.
A player was underrated at the time of the report of a game when he had a lower elo than he has currently. It has nothing to do with having a lower elo than your opponent. It becomes quite obvious if you look more closely at it. There's no need to argue about this.
And yes, playing vs underrated players is generally bad for your elo, though most people are underrated anyway since they are still climbing and there is some inflation going on over time.

Also I support Rigor's request.
User avatar
Oook
Posts: 70
Joined: March 23rd, 2009, 5:51 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Oook »

Insinuator:
Spoiler:
WhiteMage:
Spoiler:
Huumy
Posts: 292
Joined: October 15th, 2009, 9:52 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Huumy »

Rigor wrote:you just say "i have one alias but im not telling" and thats it, you kidding me? everybody else doing this kind of thing before you had the same choice, tell or dont, some with exciting public viewing (soul_steven), some none at all (neki) - what i would prefer to do is to just hear from you very soon which one (or 10, very funny Q) you use and then act accordingly. until then i dont see a reason why you should be able to continue playing as if nothing happened. could you alias-players please stop playing ladder games until this matter is resolved?
I'm not sure Rigor if you are suggesting that people who you quoted have multiple aliases?
Anyway just to be clear, I don't have multiple aliases I never had.
"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.
User avatar
Faello
Posts: 441
Joined: June 7th, 2005, 9:01 am
Location: Holy Office

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Faello »

Insinuator wrote:I don't care what Faello thinks cheating is. He's wrong. This is the dictionary's definition of cheating: "to violate rules or regulations".
1)This rule was breached multiple times by multiple persons, even by the ladder admins which validated this breach several times as Pelopidas already stated [he's also an example of such a validation]. Besides playing under different nickname, it's hard to accuse players that used aliases of anything else than using aliases - most of them probably played the games as they'd normally played them, gaining positive sporstmanship.

The main flaw of this breach is that players that used more than 1 account falsified the ladder stats [from the "legal" point of view we could say they did it intentionally, because it was easy to predict].

I've stopped discussing "does it matter or not" topic, because it's perfectly logical to me that ladder was created to rank players - if they're playing under multiple accounts they're using ladder only for it's auxiliary purpose of finding skilled opponents but that's it => that was the reason why I wasn't interested in repeating myself over and over again because I felt like I was talking to the wall.

No serious ranking in any game allows the same person to be ranked multiple times.

That fact - actually a nail to the coffin of this "is it ok or not?" discussion - wasn't recognized by some players not only in this discussion, but also since the beginning of their ladder activity - and that's also why we are discussing this problem today.

Majority of this rule breaches cases probably can't be called cheating, because cheating would be a delibarate activity that harms the other players directly (even if it would be veiled by using the alias account, like "hunting" the better ranked player with our alias accounts) - still such a cases probably already happened BUT if we're considering ONLY the action of using another account to play ladder games, it's just a rule breach.

In this case, to call it cheating, you'd have to prove that somebody used his ladder account in malignant way to harm others - in civilized society we've something called "presumption of innocence" and this presumption protects ppl from harming their good reputation. At this moment we've only a proof of rule breaching from nani and some other players, but NOBODY presented a valid proof that somebody used this rule breach to cheat - probability says that somebody probably has already used this rule breach like that but without a proof we cannot accuse anybody of cheating.

2)Considering all of the above, banning ONLY nani was unobjective. Either ladder admins are banning EVERYONE that did the similar thing or they should abstain from banning anyone. Considering ladder mechanics, banning nani looked like he was some scapegoat, only because he was the "most visible" example of this rule breaching. It reminds me a bit of a medieval way of hunting crimes:

"We've no idea who committed this crime, we've also no means to effectively pursue the perpetrators, so let's punish cruelly the most likely perpetrator and hope that the rest will tremble in fear hard enough to never do it again"

Rules about using multiple ladder accounts were not precised well enough and if they were not precised, ladder admins should react at first sight of such actions [it's hard for me to believe that ladder admins heard about multiple accounts for the first time just couple weeks ago, while ladder is online since...2 - 3 years?]

Furthermore, ladder admins should set an example for other ladder players how to act and behave on the ladder - I find Pelopidas/Coriolan behaviour somewhat inadequate considering his admin position - his Pelopidas account is still unblocked in spite of his ladder admin position. It's inactive right now, but it can mean as well that even the ladder admin could use second alias while his first account was still ranked, which AGAIN proves that banning nani was a very harsh treatment. I'm not even talking about ingame behaviour <I guess using alias sometimes let your dark side on the loose :whistle:>

Considering the ladder management area of this case, I see here the classic "split-responsibility" management problems [if 1 person would be responsible for the ladder rules, they'd be probably more precised than they're now].

Considering the multiple accounts players, I see here the "inflation" of their activity on the ladder, maybe even some form of addiction to the ladder games (it's easier to obtain the points on the ladder on fresh accounts and every loss in some high-level game can be more stressful). It's probably also nice thing to feel that our victory in wesnoth game is NOT just a waste of time and it will give us some points or something, but that's just a proof that some players should think a bit about their activity on the ladder, because most of the arguments that pro-multiple account players presented, like for ex. "I cannot play more than 1 ladder game at the same time" [which is untrue] were totally missing the point of this discussion [ladder objectivity//ladder ranking//ladder players trust to the ranking and other players] and were mostly concentrated on the auxiliary ladder purpose - playing a good games - which was already possible under current rules...

All in all, I support Rigor propositions, but I'd still count on the second/more serious ladder.
The yellow jester does not play
but gently pulls the strings
and smiles as the puppets dance
in the court of the Crimson King.
Post Reply