Ladder Site Online...

[WhiteMage]

Because sometimes players want another accounts just to try somethings, I would claim that most of the time people do things to please themselves first instead of doing harm to others.

I think that rapists, thieves, robbers, and burglars already claimed this reason. Perhaps we should just all agree with their reasoning. WOW, how did we all miss this reason as a society for so long (it’s part of human nature after all, so it should be allowed)? As long as they do it to satisfy themselves, there is no harm done whatsoever.

anoel,
not bad for a solution attempt, but you did not include my suggestion that was already liked by Nani.

5.Split the ladder into two. Keep the old one with minor modifications and create a second new ladder with strictly enforced rules including the single nick rule.

advantages
• More accurate ranking
• More accurate Elo points
• All players will get choice where to play, so they should not complain about the one that they don’t like
• Permanent solution for the colliding philosophies
• Top ranked players can continue to play as they enjoyed it in the past without losing their hard earned Elo and rank
• “Middle class” players will get a fair chance to prove that they are as good as the already “top players” without creating aliases
• Players who feel betrayed will get a chance to trust the ladder again
• Keep the maximum number of players who want to play ladder
• Attract more players due to more options
• Best chance for a solution for the multi account problem
• Top players can always try out their strategy in a ladder with whatever account they want
• Open up the future possibility to organize sport like tournaments with sponsors, where winners can compete for more than the fame of a “Mickey Mouse” type account

disadvantages
• much work
• all accounts would start from 0 games, so it will take an estimated 6 months until we start to see a structure of players (not accounts)
• most current self proclaimed top ladder players (and their alias accounts) will not like this option, since this would take away from their status of being known as best players in the world

[Insinuator]

One logical reason would be you want to play a certain style that
a)you are not as strong with the style
b)the style is simply not so strong
having the second makes it possible to have the different playstyle you use to be on different rank where you are matched according to that account skill and not to forced to play way lower ranked player with your first account.

Wow, you're still not getting it. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE A LADDER ACCOUNT TO PLAY A DIFFERENT STYLE! I'm sorry, but is that really too complicated to understand? You do know there are tons of people who play 1v1 outside of the Ladder, right? If you want to try something crazy, go for it! So what? You're playing that way for fun, right? This is still a game after all. You don't have to cheat to play the way you want.

With only one account this would result your account ratings going up and down depending which style you happen feel like playing. Lets say you have 2000 rating with your standard play, then one week you start playing only with HODOR, now this results giving easy points to players you lose. Then after the week maybe you have rating of 1800 then you start playing standard again, this time you are about 200 points underrated and maybe start playing with 2000 rating player, resulting them losing way more points than they should.

And what is wrong with your rating going up and down depending on how you feel like playing? If you choose to play HODOR on the Ladder and lose, that is your fault. Simple as that. There is no such thing as "losing more points than they should". You are losing as YOURSELF. Sometimes, YOU like to play HODOR. Sometimes, YOU like to spam cavalry. Sometimes, YOU like to bank for five turns. These are all YOUR choices. Why should someone be entitled to recieving less points for a win just because you can't bear losing with an unusual tactic? If you really don't have the guts to lose with a different strategy, don't hide behind another alias. Just do it off the Ladder.

[peace]

With only one account this would result your account ratings going up and down depending which style you happen feel like playing. Lets say you have 2000 rating with your standard play, then one week you start playing only with HODOR, now this results giving easy points to players you lose. Then after the week maybe you have rating of 1800 then you start playing standard again, this time you are about 200 points underrated and maybe start playing with 2000 rating player, resulting them losing way more points than they should.

And what is wrong with your rating going up and down depending on how you feel like playing? If you choose to play HODOR on the Ladder and lose, that is your fault. Simple as that. There is no such thing as "losing more points than they should". You are losing as YOURSELF. Sometimes, YOU like to play HODOR. Sometimes, YOU like to spam cavalry. Sometimes, YOU like to bank for five turns. These are all YOUR choices. Why should someone be entitled to recieving less points for a win just because you can't bear losing with an unusual tactic? If you really don't have the guts to lose with a different strategy, don't hide behind another alias. Just do it off the Ladder.

Do you even read the statements you quote? Based on your response it doesn't seem so. If you'd take the time to read what other people say instead of claiming to know what they mean (but what can't be found in their statements), I guess this discussion would be more reasonable.

[nani]

Wow, you're still not getting it. ... I'm sorry, but is that really too complicated to understand?

That actually counts for you here, Huumy already explained it perfectly well.
There are players like myself who would be interested in the rating they can reach with Orcs, HODOR,
or any other kind of specialties within the game. That's why we might want to play like this in ladder,
with a separate account. Is that so hard to understand?

You're playing that way for fun, right?

Of course it's fun to play like this, but it would still be interesting to get an accurate rating on how good you are with that special recruiting e.g.
I'm actually writing way too much again, I believe Huumy and Oook really explained enough already, can't be so difficult to get it.

You don't have to cheat to play the way you want.

Strong words, but again, that doesn't have anything to do with cheating,
and at least if you reduce the reasons of your aliases on trying specific recruitings, it doesn't affect the elo-system as well.

If you really don't have the guts to lose with a different strategy, don't hide behind another alias. Just do it off the Ladder.

The whole paragraph this statement belongs to actually just showed that you just don't get it, but this sentence shows it to the extreme, hilarious...

[Huumy]

I think that rapists, thieves, robbers, and burglars already claimed this reason. Perhaps we should just all agree with their reasoning. WOW, how did we all miss this reason as a society for so long (it’s part of human nature after all, so it should be allowed)? As long as they do it to satisfy themselves, there is no harm done whatsoever.

I think you missed my point, the chance to cheat do not mean every player will cheat. That all I ment by this

Because sometimes players want another accounts just to try somethings, I would claim that most of the time people do things to please themselves first instead of doing harm to others.

5.Split the ladder into two. Keep the old one with minor modifications and create a second new ladder with strictly enforced rules including the single nick rule.

There's only one practical problem who is going to make the second ladder and keep it updated? I'm all for this if there is people willing to do the hard work behind 2 ladders.

Wow, you're still not getting it. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE A LADDER ACCOUNT TO PLAY A DIFFERENT STYLE! I'm sorry, but is that really too complicated to understand? You do know there are tons of people who play 1v1 outside of the Ladder, right? If you want to try something crazy, go for it! So what? You're playing that way for fun, right? This is still a game after all. You don't have to cheat to play the way you want.

The reason I started playing ladder is that you can find 1v1 players with standard settings who don't leave after turn 3 and don't cheat (if you don't count multiple accounts as cheating).

With only one account this would result your account ratings going up and down depending which style you happen feel like playing. Lets say you have 2000 rating with your standard play, then one week you start playing only with HODOR, now this results giving easy points to players you lose. Then after the week maybe you have rating of 1800 then you start playing standard again, this time you are about 200 points underrated and maybe start playing with 2000 rating player, resulting them losing way more points than they should.

And what is wrong with your rating going up and down depending on how you feel like playing? If you choose to play HODOR on the Ladder and lose, that is your fault. Simple as that. There is no such thing as "losing more points than they should". You are losing as YOURSELF. Sometimes, YOU like to play HODOR. Sometimes, YOU like to spam cavalry. Sometimes, YOU like to bank for five turns. These are all YOUR choices. Why should someone be entitled to recieving less points for a win just because you can't bear losing with an unusual tactic?

Like I explained in my example let say you are dropped 200 points and start playing standard, then players who win you "are entitled to receive less points for a win just because you CAN bear losing with an unusual tactic". So I still stand by the logic of "having multiple accounts can improve the accuracy of the elo system".
Also I can give you second logical reason.
This is practical reason. I have sometimes thought playing only one faction and make second account for it, why I wouldn't just play my main account? Because it takes lot of time to first lose bunch of games and find out what skill level I have with one selected faction. Then whenever I would like to play random again I would need to play bunch to get my account back to level where the ratings somewhat show my skill level.
Having possibility to playing more accounts simply would make it easier to players who like to play with different styles. This makes the ladder more user friendly for more players without sacrificing much in my opinion.

[Colouredbox]

Well I think the problem isn't that bad.
What would be nice to allow multiple accounts but the account info would have links to players other accounts so you could check what his "true" rank is. Only if you could make that work...

[Myos]

There are just two ways to see someone's ranking :

- The number of ELO points is an average of how much points a player worths. That means playing a game being tired or multitasking is a part of your ELO profile. All sportive ladders I know works this way.

For example in tennis, if you are sick, play anyway and lose, your ranking is lowered. When you can read Federer worths XXX points, that means Federer in top conditions + Federer having trouble with his girlfriend + Federer with headaches, etc. worth XXX points.

Then muliaccount is just a non-sense and in this case it perfectly normal not to have a constant level.

- The number of ELO points is an average of how much points an aspect of a player worths. So your number of "aspects" must correspond to your number of accounts.

In this case, I, for exemple, who have only one account but sometime play multitasking, must create a second account. It comes as an obligation, because everybody must have a constant level, or it's not fair (like repeated during the debates).


In my opinion it's a question of philosophy, we should choose between these two issues. That's all.

In order to finish, I'm sure lots of ladder players would accept to play against another one in non ladder game to let him try new strategies.

[Scatha]

Something to throw out against the claim that the multiple accounts is more selfish:

I at least, as somebody with just one account, would prefer to play against people using multiple accounts appropriately if they're going to play in different styles at different times. I think it's more of a courtesy to other players than a selfish thing (but there are some benefits to the person themself too).

Myos: Even if you allow and encourage multiple accounts for different aspects of playing style, I don't think there's any need to require such, and I think it's better to just let people do whatever they feel most comfortable with.

To those who are against multiple accounts, would you also be against such things as:
- an account which my partner and I share, so different turns in the same game might be taken by different people?
- an account which my partner and I share so that we discuss the moves as we make them?

Also, I'd note that allowing high-rated players to get ELO ratings (not rankings -- I really don't care about the rankings) for them-trying-restricted strategies is potentially useful in providing data about game balance. I don't think this is a big effect, though.

[grrr]

So one of the best 1v1 players Wesnoth ever had was banned now? Wow, sad. Could it be that there is a great part of this ladder "community" that takes the ladder project (and Wesnoth) way too serious?

Does 8877 need to come back to you teach you a lesson about you and your precious ladder points before you realize that the *only* good thing coming out of the ladder project is the possibility to play quality (but also fun!) 1v1 matches?

The original MP community way back when the ladder project started was mostly against the project, precisely for the stubbornness and lack of common sense presented in this discussion.

Do you actually remember why for example the random maps add-on was created? To prevent too serious players from exploiting weaknesses in overplayed maps. Most of those here raging against multi-account could have been blamed for using exactly such strategies back then, so how about thinking of this before calling others "cheaters"?

Nani and others like Dauntless kept this ladder interesting with their feedback and creativity, but they also created a following (yes, watching 1v1's actually became entertaining *because* of them). Most of you have absolutely no clue how much they've done for you and your precious ladder project (yes, often enough behind the curtains but why should you care).

[anoel]

well, it wasnt my point to present the solution, but to summarize the options. i admit that my list of advantages and disadvantages is quite subjective, coz i have my own pov. i thought i include wm's idea in option 4, but whatever. i followed most of the discussion and i doubt now we find a solution all happily agree with. i think we should do a poll. my problem with the existing poll is: results are quite unclear - about a third for each option - and you dont know what are the consquences behind the options. maybe we can start a poll with multi-punch (= more than 1 answer allowed) and options like this:

• i would play in the old ladder, if mulitaccounting is prohibited and known multis are banned
• i would play in the old ladder, if multiaccounting is not allowed and multis are empasized to use only one account and abandon the others
• i would play in the old ladder, if multiaccounting is allowed and multis are emphasized to make their alternative accounts public
• i would play in the old ladder, if multiaccounting is allowed as long as it is not used in any way to cheat

• i would join a new ladder with no multiaccounting, if the old ladder allowed mulitaccounting

if a majority (maybe let say >70%) accept one of the first 4 options, we will have a decision for the old ladder. the last option is (for wm and co) to see whether there would be interest in a new ladder or not (i think this question is different from the decision for the old ladder).

[Insinuator]

To those who are against multiple accounts, would you also be against such things as:
- an account which my partner and I share, so different turns in the same game might be taken by different people?
- an account which my partner and I share so that we discuss the moves as we make them?

Me personally? Absolutely. I don't want to play you and your friend. I want to play you. I can always play your friend later. Why would I want to play against two brains? And that doesn't give an accurate rating of your skill either. Maybe your friend is a genuis and inflates your rating artificially. Or maybe he is a newb who gives you terrible advice. Either way, not representative.

Most of those here raging against multi-account could have been blamed for using exactly such strategies back then, so how about thinking of this before calling others "cheaters"?

What?

Nani and others like Dauntless kept this ladder interesting with their feedback and creativity, but they also created a following (yes, watching 1v1's actually became entertaining *because* of them). Most of you have absolutely no clue how much they've done for you and your precious ladder project (yes, often enough behind the curtains but why should you care).

Ah, I was wondering how long it would be until someone admitted this openly. That's really the hard part here. Because the cheaters are very good players, they're able to bask in their glory and have their actions winked at. The fanboys leap to their defense because they enjoy watching them play. Reasoning against that kind of limelight is very difficult. So I have nothing more to say, really. I hope the Ladder either changes the rule or finds a way to enforce it.

[WhiteMage]

i think we should do a poll. my problem with the existing poll is: results are quite unclear - about a third for each option

I think you did not think this one through anoel. If you hold a poll and want to make a decision based on that, how will you tell apart alias votes from legitimate player votes? If there is a single player who used aliases to play will make alias voting for the Poll (as I think is very likely to have already happened in the current poll) then the entire poll results are useless. The other camp (those who are against alias playing) are very unlikely to create aliases just for the poll in order to defend their position against creating aliases. So almost certainly the alias voters would benefit from a poll.
There is no reason to assume that every single vote comes from a different player.
So, the only way to go is to collect petitions. If enough people (technically accounts at this point, but will become evident that they were players after new ladder implementation) support my idea then we have to create the full list of actions and need enough admins to actually do it. Although I heavily prefer to play, I do not mind being an admin for this, since this was my idea. It would be really good to get some current admins in it to save a lot of time and to coordinate with the old ladder, which we are not trying to kill, but to complement.

Discussion of old points are not relevant any more. We should only focus on the solution and I do not support starting new lines of discussions in this thread. So those who agree with me more or less, please only make posts that push the solution forward. Do not get tricked into discussing time wasting topics, repeat topics, and personal attacks. The multi-account supporters can continue to flood, but I invite them to contribute to a solution as well.

[Huumy]

The multi-account supporters can continue to flood, but I invite them to contribute to a solution as well.

If you ment proposions for what to do? Here is one: change the rule so the aliases have to be named so they are easy to see who they belong to, making cheating with multiple accounts easy to see.
If not, what's the solution and how can some1 actually contribute to it?

Discussion of old points are not relevant any more. We should only focus on the solution and I do not support starting new lines of discussions in this thread. So those who agree with me more or less, please only make posts that push the solution forward.

I must have missed something here, so are people actually agreed on what the solution is, have the ladder admins made the decision?
All I'm asking what is actually this "solution" you are referring?

Through these last several pages of this thread conversation I have assumed that ladder admins (or whoever has the power to do the decisions) will do the decision hopefully reading this thread to hear what the players think. If not it has atleast been interesting discussion altho a bit emotionally charged, so obviously there are atleast some people who care about the ladder.

[The Black Sword]

I'm alternating between annoyed and amused by people insulting a community that I think is really friendly and nice and the use of words like evil and hatred over a computer game.

Still, trying to look at this from the other point of view, I can understand people feeling lied to. People who used aliases did break a rule. That creates a certain amount of distrust. The fact that breaking this rule caused no harm to any other individual should certainly mitigate a lot of this IMO.
Now my personal view, is to start off with a very friendly mindset towards people until given a reason to believe otherwise. I then build trust over a number of games where people are friendly, cooperative and generally fun, which has been true for the vast majority of people I've played in wesnoth. In my case this experience greatly outweighs the minor level of distrust created by creating a second account.
Obviously, the people posting here haven't had enough/any games with those involved for this to be true. But surely the fact their character is vouched for by pretty much any of their opponents should be enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. The only other alternative is to assume every one else are liars/cheaters/scum of the earth too, in which case why on earth would you want to stay in such a community anyway?

Discussion of old points are not relevant any more. We should only focus on the solution and I do not support starting new lines of discussions in this thread

That is very easy to say when you can't argue your side. Choosing the correct solution can only occur by understanding the problem, which the previous lines of discussion have tried to achieve. Personally I feel that if you and others have not understood my argument as well as you could and you could achieve greater understanding if you examined it logically. Similarly I feel that if you brought a logical counter-argument against my points I would understand your view better.

As for solutions, anoel gave us a short synopsis of those. We do not however have any capacity to change the code for the ladder or create a new one. Any attempt to do so previously has become bogged down and failed. So 4 and WhiteMage's 5 are not viable solutions, at least in the short term. This probably rules out the option of disclosing alias accounts too, though that could be done with a list on the forum, thats a lot of work for the admins if the process isn't automated, despite this probably being my preferred solution.

Regarding the other 3, if we attempt to enforce the 1 account rule;

Players who currently do not use aliases will continue to play as before with no effect to their rating.
Players who had a main account and would simply not have played sometimes if they didn't have an alias would have no effect on their rating.
Players who would just put all their games under 1 name where previously they would have used aliases, their ratings would change, whether they would go up or down is difficult to say and probably would depend on the individual.

Whether this is an advantage or not is up to you. Personally there would be no effect on my rating so I see it as neutral.

The other advantage I suppose would be to punish players who broke the 1 account rule and maybe restoring some trust to those who have lost it.
Again personally, I wouldn't see it as an advantage since my "trust levels" haven't changed and others shouldn't have changed much either given my first point above.

As for disadvantages;
System is pretty much unenforceable.
Less games being played so less chance of me or you getting a game.
Possibly lose several players, especially if all their accounts are blocked, means even less games and smaller community

Final point is the ability to play in multiple styles and get an accurate rating. I don't see this as a very big disadvantage either to be honest. But it is perhaps a fun and possibly useful balancing tool that doesn't hurt anyone.

Long post, I apologise to those who are complaining about a tide of text but there's about 10 pages to respond to, there are still more points I haven't addressed because I decided to keep it short. And please remember that you can simply copy and paste a point if you feel I've missed it.

[Faello]

Guys, calm down.

As I've already said, using multiple accounts isn't cheating, but a common rule breach thus moral side of this discussion is actually shadowed by the matter of current ranking objectivity.

I think that this topic contains already enough data that can be used to actually do something with this case - there's no meritorical reaction from ladder admins yet and they're the ones who should act now. Just wait for their response.