Ladder Site Online...

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

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
User avatar
Rigor
Posts: 941
Joined: September 27th, 2007, 1:40 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Rigor » September 23rd, 2009, 3:21 pm

i think the rules are just fine, dont change anything.

for me, such problems are solved when u put that player in ur friends list and try to continue ur game the next time. and if this guy doesnt want to continue the game scroll up to see my opinion. as if those 4-5 points would make my day XD

Soliton
Site Administrator
Posts: 1597
Joined: April 5th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Location: #wesnoth-mp

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Soliton » September 23rd, 2009, 3:37 pm

eyerouge wrote: In this specific case a disconnect could happen for whatever reason while you are playing a game.
In this specific case no disconnect happened (or the server would say so). The player left on purpose (and did not come back).
"If gameplay requires it, they can be made to live on Venus." -- scott

User avatar
eyerouge
Posts: 380
Joined: June 29th, 2007, 4:37 am
Location: wtactics.org
Contact:

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by eyerouge » September 23rd, 2009, 7:01 pm

Soliton wrote:
eyerouge wrote: In this specific case a disconnect could happen for whatever reason while you are playing a game.
In this specific case no disconnect happened (or the server would say so). The player left on purpose (and did not come back).
Ah. Good point Sol. My bad - I missread the original post and thought it was a dc. If the player left and didn't say or agree on anything with the other player then it's his/her loss of the game.

Silent: Contact the admins, they can un-revoke the game.

silent
Posts: 244
Joined: February 20th, 2009, 5:53 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by silent » September 24th, 2009, 9:06 am

eyerouge wrote:
Soliton wrote:In this specific case no disconnect happened (or the server would say so). The player left on purpose (and did not come back).
Ah. Good point Sol. My bad - I missread the original post and thought it was a dc. If the player left and didn't say or agree on anything with the other player then it's his/her loss of the game.

Silent: Contact the admins, they can un-revoke the game.
Um at the risk of asking a stupid question, I'm not quite sure how to go about contacting the admins, let alone knowing whom run the ladder.

User avatar
eyerouge
Posts: 380
Joined: June 29th, 2007, 4:37 am
Location: wtactics.org
Contact:

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by eyerouge » September 24th, 2009, 3:11 pm

silent wrote:Um at the risk of asking a stupid question, I'm not quite sure how to go about contacting the admins, let alone knowing whom run the ladder.
Not a stupid question: The footer of the site has the contact info:
contact: themasterofbattle (at) gmail (dot) com / epameinondas (at) hotmail (dot) de
It was early convention on the net to have the contact info in the footer of a page, as well as a separate. You'll notice it o nmany sites probably. May be good to know for future contacting :P

silent
Posts: 244
Joined: February 20th, 2009, 5:53 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by silent » September 28th, 2009, 2:30 am

How long does a response take?

User avatar
eyerouge
Posts: 380
Joined: June 29th, 2007, 4:37 am
Location: wtactics.org
Contact:

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by eyerouge » September 28th, 2009, 10:14 am

silent wrote:How long does a response take?
I don't know. I do however know that one of the admins currently has internet issues and can't access the net from home, limiting him/her to do so only form her work at best. That would account for one of the admins. I also know that another probably isn't really active as an admin right now, according to him self in a post in this thread. That leaves 1 or 2 admins left.

There has actually just recently been a discussion about the admins response time in a couple of previous posts in this thread, where I asked the same question as you. I won't go there again since it seems it was a sensitive topic for some people in here and I probably became unpopular for asking stuff, but it was suggested from other user(s) that there isn't any problem with how long time a reply can take and that the admin is still on vacation.

User avatar
Rigor
Posts: 941
Joined: September 27th, 2007, 1:40 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Rigor » September 28th, 2009, 6:19 pm

how about you be an admin ?

sometimes the simple answers are best ^^

forbiddian
Posts: 29
Joined: August 14th, 2009, 9:36 pm

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by forbiddian » September 28th, 2009, 6:25 pm

Back on topic:

Is there any reason not to add the following?

1) Either player can request that the game be played non-random. The first player picks a faction, then the second player picks a faction.

(Note: This still allows players to play Random vs. Random... it only prevents players from choosing Random to counter someone else who picked).


I see absolutely no reason not to implement this. And I see damn good reasons to implement it (even if you don't agree with those reasons, there are certainly a number of people in my camp).


I mean, there are a few reasons that I see for picking Random vs. Chosen, so I'll spell them out along with responses. Please feel free to add to the list, this is every possible reason I see for picking Random. I guess this will sound like a strawman setup, but it's only because I can't see any good reasons to want Chosen vs. Random games.

1) Players want diversity -- dice can be rolled or players can choose civs they haven't played recently if they don't care.

2) Players are afraid that certain civs are too strong or certain leaders are too weak and that we'll only ever see strong civs and strong leaders leading to the same matchups over and over -- I think that's fair. I think it's unfair to have players choose Random and have a chance to get stuck with a bad Civ and a bad leader. If the metagame really gets so stagnant, then factions should be rebalanced. The solution isn't to force people to play bad factions.

Also, again, if you really want Random, you can roll dice or pick a civ you haven't played recently, so you're not stuck with that same matchup.

3) Players want to gain an unfair information advantage by choosing Random so that their opponent doesn't know how to recruit at the start and so they can make an ideal recruit and their opponent can't -- This is exactly what everyone in my camp wants to change.

Soliton
Site Administrator
Posts: 1597
Joined: April 5th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Location: #wesnoth-mp

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Soliton » September 28th, 2009, 7:20 pm

forbiddian wrote:Is there any reason not to add the following?
Nope, go for it.

PS: The topic here is the ladder.


EDIT: I assume you're talking about a wesnoth feature to formalize this. Seeing eyerouge's response I guess you might mean a rule change of the ladder in which case that is pretty moot as eyerouge points out.
"If gameplay requires it, they can be made to live on Venus." -- scott

User avatar
eyerouge
Posts: 380
Joined: June 29th, 2007, 4:37 am
Location: wtactics.org
Contact:

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by eyerouge » September 28th, 2009, 7:43 pm

Rigor wrote:how about you be an admin ?

sometimes the simple answers are best ^^
My previous reply was in response to the post about the reply time for the admin and what might affect it, not as some kind of insinuation or hint about anything that relates to the composition of the admin of the LoW.

I've never expressed any wish in being an admin, on the contrary: I imagine the community should be able to sort it out itself by, ideally, some kind of democratical process or at the very least some kind of meritocracy. I quit my role as admin for that very reason, since I hadn't been officially electe, lacked the Wensoth MP knowledge that I believe at least some of the admin shoould have, combined with the fact that something which I envisioned as community powered project was a one person show. I was and still am against that because of ideological reasons, hence I called for elections to better the situation.

forbiddian wrote:Is there any reason not to add the following?

1) Either player can request that the game be played non-random. The first player picks a faction, then the second player picks a faction.

(Note: This still allows players to play Random vs. Random... it only prevents players from choosing Random to counter someone else who picked).
I speak for my personal interpretation of the LoW rules and don't represent the admin:

What you suggest seems already perfectly possible and allowed under the current rules. I can't remember anything that hinders a player requesting that the opponent chooses a specific faction (or does not choose a specific faction). Furthermore, since the LoW rules are so liberal they allow a player to even deny another player a game if/when that player chooses "random".

If you on the other hand with request mean "enforce" or something equivalent it's another story, as the ladder has no rules that can force a player to not choose random (or choose something else for that matter). If indeed all the benefits are true and the overall effects are more positive then negative on the LoW in general, I'd guess the admin would add the rule you suggest.

*

Of pure curiosity though: You suggest that first P1 chooses faction, then P2 chooses faction. Isn't then P2 always or most of the time better of than P1 since he/she got a chance to adapt to P1:s choice?

Please read this as if I spoke with very soft, humble, worried and truly curious voice for the sake of the best of LoW. I'm not interested in polemics. Just wondering how being P2 wouldn't be seen as an advantage from many players perspective.

(And if the answer here is that P1 would be allowed to change faction if P1 wanted to, well, then the identical question can be posed about P1, ad infinitum. In short: The player that picks his/her faction the last seems to me, in theory, to possibly have some kind of advantage in some cases.)

Edit: Another thing I find curious is your interest in the LoW, considering you have played only a total of 2 games on it (using that nick, I would ofc not know about anything else). Dare I ask if the lack of the rule you suggest is the reason you haven't played any more games on the LoW? Is the fact that people can choose Random when you pick a faction contributing to your activity on the LoW? I'm just asking to understand something about possible behavior of players and it's potential relation to how engaged they are in the policy making of the LoW.

WIF_Luigit
Posts: 1
Joined: March 18th, 2009, 10:43 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

[OT] Give me an admin

Post by WIF_Luigit » October 13th, 2009, 9:42 pm

Please,
give us an admin!
This without any result by admin is not acceptable.

I understand that admin of ladder is not a work, but if i think that for a long time I can't admin, before disappear, i ask for sameone to replace me.

Thanks for comprehension.

Luigi

Yogibear
Retired Developer
Posts: 1086
Joined: September 16th, 2005, 5:44 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Yogibear » October 14th, 2009, 11:24 am

Seconded.
Smart persons learn out of their mistakes, wise persons learn out of others mistakes!

Eskon
Posts: 184
Joined: August 12th, 2008, 2:21 pm
Location: Esslingen, Germany

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Eskon » October 22nd, 2009, 8:10 pm

From a competitive standpoint, the most sensible course of action already is to specialize on one map. While there are many different 1vs1 maps available, since you cannot be forced to play on any one of them, you can just restrict yourself to accepting challenges, or opening matches, on that one map. Naturally, you become very good at playing on this one map eventually, and will increase your score over time with ease. People might eventually catch on, and stop playing against you on this one map, but some will remain that will still fight you, and there's always newbies that don't know about your specialty.

You can take it a step further, and specialize in one faction on top of that. Now not only do you only have to know one map, you also only have to know six matchups instead of 21 on this one map. This helps you specialize even further and gain almost complete expertise on this one map. From a competitive standpoint, this is the lowest-risk way to high winning percentages, which will eventually lead to high ladder scores.

At this point, there isn't much you can do if you're not an expert of this map and how the faction is played on it, at least not to the extent that the specialist is. You will fight an uphill battle if you join this player on his turf. The only edge you can get at that point is the Random setting. With this, you can force the specialist to choose an initial recruit that is adaptable for all factions, while you can recruit specifically against him. You can hope that this balances his superior knowledge and training on that one map. That's the current perk of the Random setting; you trade the ability to choose your leader and faction for a (short-lived) initial strategic advantage. The enemy has to adapt to this - this is your chance to upset his specialization.



It's more about allowing players to play within a certain community, in a certain environment, and have fun, and some way to feel like you're making progress. Mainly, it's about fun. And abolishing or ranting against a particular kind of players - be it the specialists or the Random-generalists - is highly detrimental to this. Played competitively, everyone would be a map/faction specialist, and eventually map/faction specialists would have no choice but to play each other, creating very high level and exciting play for these two - but also creating a ladder in which the player placed first has possibly never faced the player placed second, simply because he is a Freelands specialist and the one on second place is a Weldyn Channel specialist.



I'm a Random player not because I want the "unfair" advantage I get over specialists by them not knowing my faction, but precisely because I want to play a part in not making the ladder a ladder just for specialists, and because I think it's unfair to expect others to always fight on your terms.

User avatar
Rigor
Posts: 941
Joined: September 27th, 2007, 1:40 am

Re: Ladder Site Online...

Post by Rigor » October 22nd, 2009, 8:35 pm

i just want to add, thats exactely what i think too. thanks for ur comment eskon!

Post Reply