Official new ladder thread

[Quetzalcoatl]

Hi,

this is supposed to be continuation of this thread:
http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=32037.

But as the old thread was for discussion of the project features this one is actually official feedback thread as the new ladder is already done. You can find it here: http://ladder8.herokuapp.com. To find more details about it pls read:
http://ladder8.herokuapp.com/news/1-int ... ng-ladder8
http://ladder8.herokuapp.com/pages/constraints
http://ladder8.herokuapp.com/pages/faq

Cheers
Q

[Cackfiend]

It's important to point out that this ladder is a completely separate project from the current 1v1 wesnoth ladder that has been in place for years (http://wesnoth.gamingladder.info/)

It is not endorsed by or controlled by the current Ladder Council (http://laddercouncil.proboards.com/index.cgi)

[nagafono]

what can i say... technically extremelly cool for current staytement

[Quetzalcoatl]

It's important to point out that this ladder is a completely separate project from the current 1v1 wesnoth ladder that has been in place for years.

Yes thx for pointing this out as thats obviously thing I forgot to mention .

nagafono thx!

I updated the FAQ and fixed bug that prevented updates of player profile information.

Cheers
Q

[Scatha]

This looks great overall.

I really hope that any animosity with the organisers of the existing ladder, who are doing a brilliant job (and have a very high combined expertise on map and faction balance) can be set aside, and the systems combined, so this works out as a win-win situation rather than a lose-lose one.

For instance if there are concerns that RBY isn't using the most balanced versions of the maps, could it be updated to use those versions? Or could the RMP be remade using the RBY architecture so that it works nicely with the new ladder system?

I'd like to proffer a minor technical suggestion for using a variant of Trueskill:

• When updating ratings, use k+v in place of v, where v is the variance in the system estimate of a player's strength, and k is a fixed constant.

I'm not sure what the best value for k is; I'd guess it should be around the variance, in the current system, or someone who has played 50-100 games? The aim here is to enforce an effective minimum variance in order to keep the major benefits of Trueskill while addressing some of the concerns people have regarding it.

You'd still have fast convergence to accurate ratings (compared to ELO), as this change, with appropriate k, wouldn't have much effect on the system for new players. It would remove the feature of getting to a point where your rating is pretty much set in stone, which it seems would increase enjoyment for feedback-junkies. I think it should also make it harder to abuse the system.

[Oook]

Here's a replay from today with some discussion of the new ladder etc. Scatha makes some good suggestions - he's a step back, removed from the politics of it all, and I like the fresh perspective that gives him.

My personal view: Q's done a great job getting coding done, and implementing many useful features. I like the use of TS, the search functions etc.

My main issue atm is that RMP cannot be used with it. I know there's some history over this (before my LC time, so I don't know / overly care about the details), but I think it's important for the LC to be able to define the map versions, and map sets, it considers best. Again, Q has done great work with getting random map / side pickers implemented, and deserves credit for this. But the LC has put a lot of work into updating, tweaking and judging new maps, and deciding which ones are suitable etc.

Q - can you see your way to tweaking L8 so it accepts RMP? Or letting TBS know what needs to be tweaked with RMP so it works (he seems happy to do this)? That way we could combine the advantages of your code with the advantages of the LC map work - that seems win-win?

A couple of other points that have come up in discussions: you mentioned a 6 month wait between forum registration and joining the ladder. I'm guessing this is to prevent aliases etc? I think a problem is this will put off a lot of genuine newish players, who might not even join the forum until they find out about the ladder. For them, a 6 month wait could kill their enthusiasm. Also, it would only really stop 'spur of the moment' aliasing - anyone who seriously wanted to could just seed various accounts, then use them later.

Secondly, the rule about losing players confirming games within 72h. If they don't, will it be flagged up for admin to investigate? Also, would I be punished if I failed to confirm a genuine result in time? E.g., I lose to Daunt on a Friday afternoon, he doesn't report for a few hours. Meanwhile, I've gone offline, go away for a long weekend, get back Monday evening and find it's expired. I'm not saying this feature is necessarily a problem, just that it would be useful to have more information on how it's implemented

In conclusion, I like the effort you've put into this - hopefully we can iron out the differences, so we can get the best of both.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Hi,

thx for the kind words.

Scatha: hopefully higher tau could to the trick .

Oook:
I spoke to Rigor yesterday and asked him to create thread on public part of council forums to discuss the matters there giving Rigor my full perspective on things. Lets wait what LC will decide.

6 month limit is there as a test if it will fail it can be changed easily so maybe for now its not a big deal. There is also no penalty for unconfired games. If you wont confirm it on time you can report it once again. It could be as well limit of 7 days instead of three, I thought that 3 days will be enough but again if such limit will turn out to be annoying it could be changed to sth that will make more sense. Its just a db clean-up procedure.

Cheers
Q

[Quetzalcoatl]

I added an option to disable import of old rating during sign up.

Cheers
Q

[Cackfiend]

im guessing you did this at Dreadnough's request, but I think he admitted he just didn't understand the system

considering you're not importing win/loss ratio what does someone have to gain from not wanting an old rating imported? i only see it as a bad thing, but maybe someone can give me an example of why it would be good?

[Quetzalcoatl]

Dreadnough wasn't the only person asking for that. TBH I dont see the point of not importing rating as well but well maybe there are some valid points Im not aware of.

[SlowThinker]

Ladder8 already supports any possible game type. Just for now however only limited set of 1v1
and 2v2 maps is allowed. More maps and scenario types will be added in the future.

Does it mean we could get a section (=an isolated ladder) for Conquest Minus?

[Max]

what's the point of having another ladder? are there insurmountable differences between some people that prevent you from putting your heads together and pool your resources? can someone tell me what's going on here?

at least have the decency to rename the misleading thread title. what does official stand for? "new ladder" as in "the other is the old one"?

[Huumy]

Technically the previous ladder is old when compared to this new ladder. Tho I don't how much time you need before you can call a ladder system build for wesnoth an old ladder?
Is there maybe an official statement by the devs or some1 in charge, how long before a ladder can be called an old one and is the life span a fixed amount of time or is it relative to wesnoth's life span?

[Quetzalcoatl]

SlowThinker: there are no isolation features now but supporting conquest should be possible (if not easy) with current codebase. I wonder what would be the best solution and how ratings form conquest would translate to regular ratings for 1v1 and 2v2 (as conquest is totally differnend game type). I wanted to check conquest compatibilty but it seems all replays have playable ai side. Currently only ai sides that cant be played by players can exists in scenarios being reported. So I need some hints here about conquest requirements and structure.

Max: Its hard to explain it in short post and I will for sure miss a lot of points. If you are interested in details pls check old ladder threads and join council forums to find more information. Also I dont find thread name missleading, ladder is not official thats for sure but thread is. If you have better title for the topic discussed I can change its name to it.

[SlowThinker]

Yes, Conquest is a very different game type, this is why I expected the ladder would be fully isolated. Maybe the Conquest nicks could be distinguished, let us say I play both standard Wesnoth and Conquest games, so I use two nicks: SlowThinker and SlowThinker(Conq) ?

What do you mean by "playable" ai side? The ai side is

Code: Select all

[side]
	allow_player=no
	[ai]
		ai_algorithm=idle_ai
	[/ai] 
[/side]