Ladder Site Online...
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Re: Ladder Site Online...
OK here goes my response to this topic. yes, i followed the discussion but decided to hold back until the storm calmed a little since it is natural to answer emotionally one way or the other.
so what do i think on that matter and do i have a compromise/solution to offer? yes i have one idea that has the potential to make everybody happy. first the idea (with a bit of discussion), then my own statement to this situation because all of you already told us your point of view but i havent had the opportunity yet and last but not least about the ladder website and shortly there are also admins replies on that matter.
a part of the idea i derived from the excel sheet from SalsaRocoto (much obliged if you could post it when its finished):
you actually dont lose damn many points considering you play the top 10 in ranking, as everybody can see right now for himself if demo plays with ELO 2260 (but this is only an idealization, because the points are dynamic and not exactely this value. so i guess losing against demo in those 1,5 years while he had 1500-1800 points was more painful than he having already 1800-2260, not to talk about what would have been if he used his strong account in the first place, earlier around 2300, now 2400.)
i dont want to get into a too deep discussion about this, only that it would be interesting to have more than just ELO 2260 to compare his opponents lost point difference plus what has not been shown, the OWN point change: playing with 2400 your own rating is supposed to go down faster than with 1500-1800 or 1800-2260.
coming right next to the other point that concerns the 1-alias-only players: what about the point change in the players protected account (since this is actually what its about in the first place - protect your main account from losing rank due to casual gameplay or trying awesome tactics that can as well go awesomely wrong - but better than not playing at all)? you know, others have been playing like that all the time, in good times and in bad...
it would be perfectly ok for one-alias players to have an individual "prestige" plus an alternative "causal,new-tactics,one-race,i-just-want-to-play-on-the-ladder" alias if the following scenario is thinkable:
the idea: you have the normal ranking like we have right now for everybody, and then you have another button for displaying a new ranking, namely, your 1st account plus...all the games that were played with account number 2-10 (?) that will be treated as if played with only one account (kind-of merge option). This means, the calculation would go like this:
leo account (3 games vs 2100 stretched over a certain time period)
demo account (12 casual games in the same period: 3 losses vs elo 2200, 5 wins vs elo 1700, 2 wins & 2 losses against the same player elo 1850)
in the one ladder view, the leo account would get those 3 games points like before, and the demo account as well.
in the new ladder view, the calculation would go like this: the base points given or taken would be from leo, not demo. additionally, in the new ladder calculation, the alias demo would not be existent in this ladder ranking because the machine has the additional information, that both accounts belong to one person. the ranking would then be ideally calculated back to the moment where the games with this account began. once more this solution is built on trust and will not be controlled by some bank-account-like login procedure. this means, you can of course not tell the others who you really are, but once found out this will really create a bad atmosphere.
Figure: and now, something completely uncomplicated and easy to relax you eyes upon: the other ladder.
i think it would serve both the pro and the con faction. pro-alias would have their alias-possibility and contra-alias would not feel cheated. and now comes the personal opinion i told u about:
i think its an absolute no-go to have multiple pseudos in a ranked environment. even if you tell me that you are playing casually and not all-too-seriously, i cannot really tell if its true and since you decided to not tell me you are XY, i assume you are capable of deception. because when you are a good player, it often happens to you that you know this situation all too well and you dont have to use your brain too much to cope with it (nothing special so far). and then, suddenly, there is this one critical moment in the game that everybody was waiting for, involving a movement order for 15 units, level ups, damage calculations to survive a possible counter if something went wrong with 1-4 hp only, trickery, ambush, intended provocations, sacrifices etc.
well of course, since this person is the same that is sitting in the top 10 he has a broad repertoire of tricks that he can use from experience to fight well, and this turn will certainly not be one where he thinks with one half of his brain (aka multitasking). and i absolutly dont buy it if somebody tells me that this one person doesnt recognize a critical situation or plays in this situation according to his casual rank. i think, like those that have only one alias, he tries one time better and one time worse to deal with it (at least subconsciously!), with different results. just as if he had a good or a bad day in his secondary alias.
another thing that annoys me when i am faced with pseudos is the inability to precisely estimate my opponents skills. what if this alias was just waiting all the time to play me with his protected account and after checking me out, offering me only a weak victory against pseudo ranked 38 instead of a win vs one of the top 10? i like to win against players in the top 10 and deal scars to their profile - is it really fair that they talk themselves out of it by saying "oh you know, i didnt really have too much time to play seriously, so i just took my punching-bag alias so its not like you won against me." ugh. what should i say now, playing with one account, no matter how i feel?
sometimes i see a player ranked with 1500-1800 and think, oh ok, i will manage to beat him in 1h soundly, and i am not in the mood to play against 2200 right now, but for this guy it will just be enough. but then the top-10-alias secretly laughs with glee because he can have an easy victory against me, who thought i wouldnt have a hard time there. great. so getting careless as one-alias player isnt that hard, you see? what is it good for to detect the rank of a player when he needs time to climb the ladder to this position? his ranking is wrong for months (or more than a year), only at the end he has the desired "casual" ranking. until this point, he has alternately fooled good and bad players about his true skill. meh.
then, another point that i would like to pick up is that at least I dont always react the same to every player's alias, and it can happen, that i end up talking about exactly the one im playing with. i mean, there was a good or bad situation and i kind of got emotional about it, and start telling him afterwards everything from my point of view (how awesomely you have beaten this player X, or how unfairly you have lost). but is it really fair that he hides behind an alias-fence and is angry at you the next time you see him with his other alias? i think not.
so dear alias-players, i usually know that sometimes you cant talk about certain things when one person is present (because you would be impolite), but if I do because you decided to use your other alias, dont be like that, thats not MY fault. it is just increasing the distrust in the community if you have the feeling you cannot speak openly anymore. just assuming that this guy is one person i know quite well, when i think back to the time i played the game, i think i shouldnt have written his other alias pms if he saw the game already and how funnily furious he was in-game and how great it is that his reactions will be read and downloaded many times and being in the spotlight for longer: http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php ... ks#p450446 and last but not least, its not fair that one player doesnt know how many times he has beaten the other, who knows.
the ladder website is down as you have noticed, and the person in charge has been contacted already.
i have also contacted the other ladder admins to say something on that matter, its not too long that i have written my invitations to hear what they have to say so please be patient. i got replies from 3 admins so far and will wait until the others gave me their voices as well. until then i wanted you to know that they were informed and there were recommendations how to deal with this situation and also abstains of votes.
So thats it from my side, hope to hear something constructive.
I will more likely answer faster without "how things should be done" posts, insults, accusations or innuendos on my person,especially those coming from freshly registered alias-accounts with few posts but who nevertheless are experts about everything already.
so what do i think on that matter and do i have a compromise/solution to offer? yes i have one idea that has the potential to make everybody happy. first the idea (with a bit of discussion), then my own statement to this situation because all of you already told us your point of view but i havent had the opportunity yet and last but not least about the ladder website and shortly there are also admins replies on that matter.
a part of the idea i derived from the excel sheet from SalsaRocoto (much obliged if you could post it when its finished):
you actually dont lose damn many points considering you play the top 10 in ranking, as everybody can see right now for himself if demo plays with ELO 2260 (but this is only an idealization, because the points are dynamic and not exactely this value. so i guess losing against demo in those 1,5 years while he had 1500-1800 points was more painful than he having already 1800-2260, not to talk about what would have been if he used his strong account in the first place, earlier around 2300, now 2400.)
i dont want to get into a too deep discussion about this, only that it would be interesting to have more than just ELO 2260 to compare his opponents lost point difference plus what has not been shown, the OWN point change: playing with 2400 your own rating is supposed to go down faster than with 1500-1800 or 1800-2260.
coming right next to the other point that concerns the 1-alias-only players: what about the point change in the players protected account (since this is actually what its about in the first place - protect your main account from losing rank due to casual gameplay or trying awesome tactics that can as well go awesomely wrong - but better than not playing at all)? you know, others have been playing like that all the time, in good times and in bad...
it would be perfectly ok for one-alias players to have an individual "prestige" plus an alternative "causal,new-tactics,one-race,i-just-want-to-play-on-the-ladder" alias if the following scenario is thinkable:
the idea: you have the normal ranking like we have right now for everybody, and then you have another button for displaying a new ranking, namely, your 1st account plus...all the games that were played with account number 2-10 (?) that will be treated as if played with only one account (kind-of merge option). This means, the calculation would go like this:
leo account (3 games vs 2100 stretched over a certain time period)
demo account (12 casual games in the same period: 3 losses vs elo 2200, 5 wins vs elo 1700, 2 wins & 2 losses against the same player elo 1850)
in the one ladder view, the leo account would get those 3 games points like before, and the demo account as well.
in the new ladder view, the calculation would go like this: the base points given or taken would be from leo, not demo. additionally, in the new ladder calculation, the alias demo would not be existent in this ladder ranking because the machine has the additional information, that both accounts belong to one person. the ranking would then be ideally calculated back to the moment where the games with this account began. once more this solution is built on trust and will not be controlled by some bank-account-like login procedure. this means, you can of course not tell the others who you really are, but once found out this will really create a bad atmosphere.
Figure: and now, something completely uncomplicated and easy to relax you eyes upon: the other ladder.
i think it would serve both the pro and the con faction. pro-alias would have their alias-possibility and contra-alias would not feel cheated. and now comes the personal opinion i told u about:
i think its an absolute no-go to have multiple pseudos in a ranked environment. even if you tell me that you are playing casually and not all-too-seriously, i cannot really tell if its true and since you decided to not tell me you are XY, i assume you are capable of deception. because when you are a good player, it often happens to you that you know this situation all too well and you dont have to use your brain too much to cope with it (nothing special so far). and then, suddenly, there is this one critical moment in the game that everybody was waiting for, involving a movement order for 15 units, level ups, damage calculations to survive a possible counter if something went wrong with 1-4 hp only, trickery, ambush, intended provocations, sacrifices etc.
well of course, since this person is the same that is sitting in the top 10 he has a broad repertoire of tricks that he can use from experience to fight well, and this turn will certainly not be one where he thinks with one half of his brain (aka multitasking). and i absolutly dont buy it if somebody tells me that this one person doesnt recognize a critical situation or plays in this situation according to his casual rank. i think, like those that have only one alias, he tries one time better and one time worse to deal with it (at least subconsciously!), with different results. just as if he had a good or a bad day in his secondary alias.
another thing that annoys me when i am faced with pseudos is the inability to precisely estimate my opponents skills. what if this alias was just waiting all the time to play me with his protected account and after checking me out, offering me only a weak victory against pseudo ranked 38 instead of a win vs one of the top 10? i like to win against players in the top 10 and deal scars to their profile - is it really fair that they talk themselves out of it by saying "oh you know, i didnt really have too much time to play seriously, so i just took my punching-bag alias so its not like you won against me." ugh. what should i say now, playing with one account, no matter how i feel?
sometimes i see a player ranked with 1500-1800 and think, oh ok, i will manage to beat him in 1h soundly, and i am not in the mood to play against 2200 right now, but for this guy it will just be enough. but then the top-10-alias secretly laughs with glee because he can have an easy victory against me, who thought i wouldnt have a hard time there. great. so getting careless as one-alias player isnt that hard, you see? what is it good for to detect the rank of a player when he needs time to climb the ladder to this position? his ranking is wrong for months (or more than a year), only at the end he has the desired "casual" ranking. until this point, he has alternately fooled good and bad players about his true skill. meh.
then, another point that i would like to pick up is that at least I dont always react the same to every player's alias, and it can happen, that i end up talking about exactly the one im playing with. i mean, there was a good or bad situation and i kind of got emotional about it, and start telling him afterwards everything from my point of view (how awesomely you have beaten this player X, or how unfairly you have lost). but is it really fair that he hides behind an alias-fence and is angry at you the next time you see him with his other alias? i think not.
so dear alias-players, i usually know that sometimes you cant talk about certain things when one person is present (because you would be impolite), but if I do because you decided to use your other alias, dont be like that, thats not MY fault. it is just increasing the distrust in the community if you have the feeling you cannot speak openly anymore. just assuming that this guy is one person i know quite well, when i think back to the time i played the game, i think i shouldnt have written his other alias pms if he saw the game already and how funnily furious he was in-game and how great it is that his reactions will be read and downloaded many times and being in the spotlight for longer: http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php ... ks#p450446 and last but not least, its not fair that one player doesnt know how many times he has beaten the other, who knows.
the ladder website is down as you have noticed, and the person in charge has been contacted already.
i have also contacted the other ladder admins to say something on that matter, its not too long that i have written my invitations to hear what they have to say so please be patient. i got replies from 3 admins so far and will wait until the others gave me their voices as well. until then i wanted you to know that they were informed and there were recommendations how to deal with this situation and also abstains of votes.
So thats it from my side, hope to hear something constructive.
I will more likely answer faster without "how things should be done" posts, insults, accusations or innuendos on my person,especially those coming from freshly registered alias-accounts with few posts but who nevertheless are experts about everything already.
Re: Ladder Site Online...
Rigor - I'll give you a more in-depth response later on, but for now I'd just like to check I'm understanding your idea correctly.
Firstly, from context it looks like you're using 'ranking' and 'rating' interchangeably. In English at least, rating would be used to refer to the elo points and system. Putting these ratings into order would then generate the ranking. I'm not trying to be pedantic here, it's just that I was unsure sometimes which you meant.
Does your suggestion mean that you in effect have two rating systems running in parallel, one with all accounts separate, the other with all a player's aliases bundled together? Or does it just recalculate the rankings without the aliases (using a hidden second rating system, presumably)?
Can a casual user see which aliases are linked to which main account? If not, then if you played an alias, you wouldn't know how many 'main accounts only' points were at stake until afterwards, or have I misunderstood?
This also sounds like it will require a major rewrite of the ladder code. Do you have a willing coder for the project? If so, then great! There are various improvements that have been suggested over the years, and hopefully these could be included in the new code?
Even if coding starts at once, it might well be a while before the new ladder is ready to go. In the meantime, how would the rules stand? What do you think of Scatha / Huumy's suggestion of aliases being allowed, but made public? That would give people who don't like playing aliases an easy way to avoid them.
Firstly, from context it looks like you're using 'ranking' and 'rating' interchangeably. In English at least, rating would be used to refer to the elo points and system. Putting these ratings into order would then generate the ranking. I'm not trying to be pedantic here, it's just that I was unsure sometimes which you meant.
Does your suggestion mean that you in effect have two rating systems running in parallel, one with all accounts separate, the other with all a player's aliases bundled together? Or does it just recalculate the rankings without the aliases (using a hidden second rating system, presumably)?
Can a casual user see which aliases are linked to which main account? If not, then if you played an alias, you wouldn't know how many 'main accounts only' points were at stake until afterwards, or have I misunderstood?
This also sounds like it will require a major rewrite of the ladder code. Do you have a willing coder for the project? If so, then great! There are various improvements that have been suggested over the years, and hopefully these could be included in the new code?
Even if coding starts at once, it might well be a while before the new ladder is ready to go. In the meantime, how would the rules stand? What do you think of Scatha / Huumy's suggestion of aliases being allowed, but made public? That would give people who don't like playing aliases an easy way to avoid them.
Re: Ladder Site Online...
@Rigor:
Yeah its the twofaced backstabbing side of multis which is unfair, not sporty and therefore annoying. Spot on, on all accounts!
Thats the real issue , not elo.
I like your suggestion , worth a try, though I am sure it wont solve the issue. From my xp only a very small minority has allways been using only one nick.
Yeah its the twofaced backstabbing side of multis which is unfair, not sporty and therefore annoying. Spot on, on all accounts!
Thats the real issue , not elo.
I like your suggestion , worth a try, though I am sure it wont solve the issue. From my xp only a very small minority has allways been using only one nick.
Last edited by Gallifax on July 14th, 2011, 5:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Ladder Site Online...
Good night everyone
Rigor, this is my 24th post since january 2008 but every post I wrote was trying to help I can assure this. By the way Wesnoth is the only computer game I playe since I discovered it in the Internet. I do not play what I would like cause do not have so much free time. I go everywhere with my Wesnoth Pen Drive ready to play when I have time to. So I can feel part of this project.
I can see that you really think multiple accounts should be forbidden but you want to give "passing solutions" to this corrupted minority of ladder players. I can be sure that mayority has a UNIQUE account. And ladder developers should rule for this mayority otherwise players will not play ladder anymore. You have remembered me Zapatero in Spain ruling for Catalunya and Vasque politicians changing and creating laws to satisfy them but damaging rest of spanish people...
I still think the same I wrote in my last posts and if you want to solve this you have to think in the majority.
Trueskill was an amazing project you had in mind with lot of benefits and new ELO rating. In one of the points written was to assure one unique account. I bet on this.
About good corrupted players that would be banned we all do not have to bother about them. I can tell you there are lot of good non corrupted players there ready to play.
Hope to have been clear
Sincerely
Paxe
Rigor, this is my 24th post since january 2008 but every post I wrote was trying to help I can assure this. By the way Wesnoth is the only computer game I playe since I discovered it in the Internet. I do not play what I would like cause do not have so much free time. I go everywhere with my Wesnoth Pen Drive ready to play when I have time to. So I can feel part of this project.
I can see that you really think multiple accounts should be forbidden but you want to give "passing solutions" to this corrupted minority of ladder players. I can be sure that mayority has a UNIQUE account. And ladder developers should rule for this mayority otherwise players will not play ladder anymore. You have remembered me Zapatero in Spain ruling for Catalunya and Vasque politicians changing and creating laws to satisfy them but damaging rest of spanish people...
I still think the same I wrote in my last posts and if you want to solve this you have to think in the majority.
Trueskill was an amazing project you had in mind with lot of benefits and new ELO rating. In one of the points written was to assure one unique account. I bet on this.
About good corrupted players that would be banned we all do not have to bother about them. I can tell you there are lot of good non corrupted players there ready to play.
Hope to have been clear
Sincerely
Paxe
Best computer game ever played?...... Wesnoth, The Battle for Wesnoth, of course!
-
The Black Sword
- Posts: 373
- Joined: October 13th, 2008, 4:35 pm
Re: Ladder Site Online...
Hey Rigor,
I'll try to address your points in turn;
Personally I don't see this as a problem however. When I compare my rating to leo's, I can see the probability of me winning a game against that account is. When I compare my rating to demo's, I can see the probability of me winning a game against that account is.
If all the games took place under 1 account, then I could see the probability of me winning a game against that account is.
All 3 of these probabilities are just as accurate.
Your idea seems quite good to me, it's essentially disclosing which accounts are aliases, which I said I am for. This looks like it would need even more coding however.
) joining the ladder.
I'd also point out again that the leo/demo accounts should not be banned/blocked while this debate is going on, not that it matters much with the site down atm
.
I'll try to address your points in turn;
I think nani mentioned that he wouldn't have played those games if the alias option wasn't available, in which case there would be no effect on his rating. I doubt this is the case for every single alias/game but it should be noted.coming right next to the other point that concerns the 1-alias-only players: what about the point change in the players protected account (since this is actually what its about in the first place - protect your main account from losing rank due to casual gameplay or trying awesome tactics that can as well go awesomely wrong - but better than not playing at all)? you know, others have been playing like that all the time, in good times and in bad...
Personally I don't see this as a problem however. When I compare my rating to leo's, I can see the probability of me winning a game against that account is. When I compare my rating to demo's, I can see the probability of me winning a game against that account is.
If all the games took place under 1 account, then I could see the probability of me winning a game against that account is.
All 3 of these probabilities are just as accurate.
Your idea seems quite good to me, it's essentially disclosing which accounts are aliases, which I said I am for. This looks like it would need even more coding however.
This I think, falls entirely under the argument that this is true for any strong non ladder player(say someone of around 2260 strengthi think its an absolute no-go to have multiple pseudos in a ranked environment. even if you tell me that you are playing casually and not all-too-seriously, i cannot really tell if its true and since you decided to not tell me you are XY, i assume you are capable of deception. because when you are a good player, it often happens to you that you know this situation all too well and you dont have to use your brain too much to cope with it (nothing special so far). and then, suddenly, there is this one critical moment in the game that everybody was waiting for, involving a movement order for 15 units, level ups, damage calculations to survive a possible counter if something went wrong with 1-4 hp only, trickery, ambush, intended provocations, sacrifices etc.
well of course, since this person is the same that is sitting in the top 10 he has a broad repertoire of tricks that he can use from experience to fight well, and this turn will certainly not be one where he thinks with one half of his brain (aka multitasking). and i absolutly dont buy it if somebody tells me that this one person doesnt recognize a critical situation or plays in this situation according to his casual rank. i think, like those that have only one alias, he tries one time better and one time worse to deal with it (at least subconsciously!), with different results. just as if he had a good or a bad day in his secondary alias.
another thing that annoys me when i am faced with pseudos is the inability to precisely estimate my opponents skills. what if this alias was just waiting all the time to play me with his protected account and after checking me out, offering me only a weak victory against pseudo ranked 38 instead of a win vs one of the top 10? i like to win against players in the top 10 and deal scars to their profile - is it really fair that they talk themselves out of it by saying "oh you know, i didnt really have too much time to play seriously, so i just took my punching-bag alias so its not like you won against me." ugh. what should i say now, playing with one account, no matter how i feel?
sometimes i see a player ranked with 1500-1800 and think, oh ok, i will manage to beat him in 1h soundly, and i am not in the mood to play against 2200 right now, but for this guy it will just be enough. but then the top-10-alias secretly laughs with glee because he can have an easy victory against me, who thought i wouldnt have a hard time there. great. so getting careless as one-alias player isnt that hard, you see? what is it good for to detect the rank of a player when he needs time to climb the ladder to this position? his ranking is wrong for months (or more than a year), only at the end he has the desired "casual" ranking. until this point, he has alternately fooled good and bad players about his true skill. meh.
) joining the ladder.I admit I hadn't thought of this. It would be solved by tagging which account is an alias for who and which isn't, as suggested though. Additionally, I think I'd personally stand over everything I say about people even if they're not present, I might phrase things nicer but I wouldn't be saying something totally different behind their back. Another thought is that you always have this problem with the possibility of them downloading the replay.then, another point that i would like to pick up is that at least I dont always react the same to every player's alias, and it can happen, that i end up talking about exactly the one im playing with. i mean, there was a good or bad situation and i kind of got emotional about it, and start telling him afterwards everything from my point of view (how awesomely you have beaten this player X, or how unfairly you have lost). but is it really fair that he hides behind an alias-fence and is angry at you the next time you see him with his other alias? i think not.
Again, solved by tagging aliases, and personally, I don't really care.one player doesnt know how many times he has beaten the other, who knows.
I'd also point out again that the leo/demo accounts should not be banned/blocked while this debate is going on, not that it matters much with the site down atm
.Re: Ladder Site Online...
Humm...
No reply from our favorite developers that use to have multiple account on server and (for sure) on ladder site...?!
Like someone already said: ladder is just here to prevent leavers and other bad players to ruin games. What's the problem with multiple account?
Ladder just gratify our ego.... But everyone already know that we don't win just because of skill
No reply from our favorite developers that use to have multiple account on server and (for sure) on ladder site...?!
Like someone already said: ladder is just here to prevent leavers and other bad players to ruin games. What's the problem with multiple account?
Ladder just gratify our ego.... But everyone already know that we don't win just because of skill
"Of course His Majesty is a pacifist. When I told him that to initiate war was a mistake, he agreed.Thus, gradually, he began to lead toward war."-Emperor Shòwa (Enlightened Peace)'s chief cabinet secretary
Re: Ladder Site Online...
Hello,
I have many nicknames on the server but only one in Ladder because it is a ladder. Good players with many nick penalize newbies and for this I am opposed.
Furthermore I hate to lose good players, so would suggest them to choose to keep the nickname and delete the others. As I recall the source code of the ladder you can recalculate all ELO after deleting the matches (after a backup of database ).
Note: unlike the case of a second nick is created because you lost the password of the first nick and has not had the good idea to contact an administrator.
In any case Rigor has my support.
Sorry for my english ..
Luigi
I have many nicknames on the server but only one in Ladder because it is a ladder. Good players with many nick penalize newbies and for this I am opposed.
Furthermore I hate to lose good players, so would suggest them to choose to keep the nickname and delete the others. As I recall the source code of the ladder you can recalculate all ELO after deleting the matches (after a backup of database
).Note: unlike the case of a second nick is created because you lost the password of the first nick and has not had the good idea to contact an administrator.
In any case Rigor has my support.
Sorry for my english ..
Luigi
Re: Ladder Site Online...
Please keep in mind that the Wesnoth developers (and Wesnoth itself) are/is in no way officially affiliated with the Wesnoth Ladder System, which is run independently. You already have read (or could have done so) the first ladder admin's statement from Rigor; and I'm sure that the other ladder admins are going to follow him.hiro hito wrote:Humm...
No reply from our favorite developers that use to have multiple account on server and (for sure) on ladder site...?!
Regarding the topic, I cannot add anything valuable since I didn't start yet to play ladder, but I personally really like Rigor's idea. If someone would code this, it could become a real solution with advantages for both sides.
I just want to emphasize again that this whole community is based on trust. Who - except from themselves - can say for sure that leocrotta and Dauntless are two different persons? Nobody. I do not want to say that this is true, but I want to make clear that nobody knows whether it is true or not. For example, I cannot imagine that many people knew the leocrotta and Demogorgon were the same person — seriously, who of you would have believed this if someone would have come around and told you this?
And because this is completely based on trust, you cannot force players not to have aliases. In chess, it's different, because you see your opponent and you will certainly notice it's the same person under different names. The only thing you can to here is either to ask players not to use different nicks, or to ask them to make them public, or to allow them. You are not able to force any of these solutions (except the last, of course). 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...).
Crend
UMC Story Images — Story images for your campaign!
-
SalsaRocoto
- Posts: 41
- Joined: November 5th, 2009, 12:34 pm
Re: Ladder Site Online...
Hey all,
as promised, in this post:
This calculates the cost for opponents of having a player NOT rated accurately. As has been noted by TBS, this is exactly the same as a new strong player joining the ladder. I don't see why that would not matter for the alias discussion though: two points about that: firstly, this cost for opponents is unavoidable for a new strong player joining the ladder. It is avoidable for aliases. Secondly, let's be honest: how often do you think 2200+ new strong players join the ladder compared to how often existing strong players create an alias ? for example the only new strong player I know is soul_steven (of course they are others, it happens he is the only one I know), and we know nani has 2 aliases, Daunt 1, Cremember at least one and neki 2...
What I suggest is the following: assuming we don't want to modify a single line of code, I suggest that we change the number of games before becoming ranked from 11 to 25 or 30. To do so, there is just a configuration file to change, no modification of code is needed. This can be done right away at no cost. What that would do is ensure that aliases (or new players) ratings converge much quicker to their actual rating, while decreasing dramatically the cost for opponents (most of the cost is due to loosing as my calculations have shown). The drawback is of course that you would have to wait longer to be ranked. This could have a negative effect for real new players.
On top of that, I back up the suggestion to change the rule to allow aliases as long as the are public. I think aliases could be made public on the forum, again to avoid any modification of the ladder code.
If we find the people to modify the code, there is a lot of suggestions I have, like being able to search games by matchup or by map, but regarding the ranking system I suggest we switch to TrueSkill which solves most of the alias problem.
Hope this helps
Salsa
PS: for some reason I cannot attach the Excel file, you can download it here: http://www.mediafire.com/?cwy7f1runq1s7
as promised, in this post:
ladder's ELO system
Excel file to calculate prejudice caused by an alias
What I suggest is the following: assuming we don't want to modify a single line of code, I suggest that we change the number of games before becoming ranked from 11 to 25 or 30. To do so, there is just a configuration file to change, no modification of code is needed. This can be done right away at no cost. What that would do is ensure that aliases (or new players) ratings converge much quicker to their actual rating, while decreasing dramatically the cost for opponents (most of the cost is due to loosing as my calculations have shown). The drawback is of course that you would have to wait longer to be ranked. This could have a negative effect for real new players.
On top of that, I back up the suggestion to change the rule to allow aliases as long as the are public. I think aliases could be made public on the forum, again to avoid any modification of the ladder code.
If we find the people to modify the code, there is a lot of suggestions I have, like being able to search games by matchup or by map, but regarding the ranking system I suggest we switch to TrueSkill which solves most of the alias problem.
Hope this helps
Salsa
PS: for some reason I cannot attach the Excel file, you can download it here: http://www.mediafire.com/?cwy7f1runq1s7
Re: Ladder Site Online...
First of all, players with multiple accounts are corrupted? Really?Paxe wrote:I can see that you really think multiple accounts should be forbidden but you want to give "passing solutions" to this corrupted minority of ladder players. I can be sure that mayority has a UNIQUE account. And ladder developers should rule for this mayority otherwise players will not play ladder anymore. You have remembered me Zapatero in Spain ruling for Catalunya and Vasque politicians changing and creating laws to satisfy them but damaging rest of spanish people...
Secondly, ruling for majority does not work with logic: majority is not doing it so it should be illegal or against the rules.
It works with logic: majority has problem with it so that's why it should be illegal or against the rules.
Example: it is totally different thing to say that playing soccer or ice-hockey is illegal (because majority of the people don't do that) than saying drugs are illegal (because majority of people don't like other people using them).
Third point, I'm not sure that majority of the players suddenly stop playing if multiple aliases (hopefully public) can be used on ladder.
These all three things are not absolutes and one big factor of knowing how they will affect is hearing people opinions on this forum. This is why I dislike the attitude: "I know what is best for the ladder, if you don't do it how I like it majority of people will stop playing". Because this discussion is also a way to people tell if they will continue to play or not if things are done in a certain way. And atleast as far as I know no1 here has the authority represent the majority or the minority. Instead more productive would be "This is what I think is best for the ladder (or how I like things to be done), if they are not done this way this and this could happen also I will do this"
I'm sure every1 here tries to think what's best for the ladder (because that's what's ultimately is best for the users of ladders). No1 here is trying to ruin the experience for others. And talking about politics, one thing of many I hate about politics are scare tactics, again it's just a way to get people do what you want, it's a way telling your opinion with this kinda phrase added to it "do this or everything is ruined" because it scares peoples to agree with you when there is no actual logic behind it instead it affects people emotionally. There's difference of telling your opinion with clear reasons or saying that people who your opinions differ with are corrupt and if things are not done in a certain way every1 is going to be miserable.
Again I don't have anything against any1 personally (how could I? I don't know any1 here personally) I'm just trying to point out that it would more productive to express one's opinion clearly and disagreeing with others opinions, not going on personal attacks or name calling.
Ps I'm favor of Rigors 2 ladders and public aliases. If you want my reasons they are on previous pages.
"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.
The offspring, trolling you since forever.
Re: Ladder Site Online...
Thanks to Salsa for that analysis of the elo impact - good work. I'd agree with you that a slightly longer 'new player' period might make sense, not just wrt aliases, but in general as well - upping it to 15 or 20 would help ensure the vast majority of new players had a reasonably accurate ranking when they started on the ladder proper. If this is to be changed, I'd also call for a win / loss against a new player to only gain / lose you at most 1 point. The whole point of the new player period is that their actual rating is unknown, so it makes little sense to feed essentially random information into the rating system. If you want to include these games, a better solution would be to add them in based on the player's rating after 10/15/20 games. To extend TBS's point about these effects currently happening anyway - it's currently permitted to have sequential aliases, which would have the same effect on ratings.
Also, good post by Huumy - I think that answers Paxe's comments nicely.
Rigor - a brief response to your personal opinion. I've already made most of my points on it elsewhere, but there's a few specific ones I'd be interested in your opinion on. I've spoilered it to keep it out of the way of the main discussion at this point.
Also, good post by Huumy - I think that answers Paxe's comments nicely.
Rigor - a brief response to your personal opinion. I've already made most of my points on it elsewhere, but there's a few specific ones I'd be interested in your opinion on. I've spoilered it to keep it out of the way of the main discussion at this point.
Spoiler:
Re: Ladder Site Online...
Hi 
I was wondering why nobody is playing ladder games at the moment. All of you are here, lol. I have nothing to contribute, sorry, but I'm super curious.
Dauntless, what is your alias?
Best wishes
Shagal
I was wondering why nobody is playing ladder games at the moment. All of you are here, lol. I have nothing to contribute, sorry, but I'm super curious.
Dauntless, what is your alias?
Best wishes
Shagal
-
Insinuator
- Posts: 706
- Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Re: Ladder Site Online...
If you're actually wondering that, I pity you. I won't speak for others, but personally, I no longer trust my fellow Ladder players and what I've seen of the discussion here has only deepened that mistrust.Shagal wrote:I was wondering why nobody is playing ladder games at the moment. All of you are here, lol. I have nothing to contribute, sorry, but I'm super curious.
Re: Ladder Site Online...
Take it easy Insinuator!
Another question is crossing my mind, too. Who of you did discuss with his alias here?
Best wishes
Shagal
Another question is crossing my mind, too. Who of you did discuss with his alias here?
Best wishes
Shagal
Re: Ladder Site Online...
Dear ladder community,
Regarding Rigor’s post of having an idea that has “potential to make everybody happy”, I am sorry to report that after reading the post several times, it does not make me happy, so word “everybody” is off the table. The idea, AGAIN, is based on TRUST of people not cheating and uses the Leo example, which is a gross oversimplification of the set of problems. I decided to stop arguing my points here (so no need calling me names any more) and instead of trying to fix a broken ladder, I considered building my own. However, after careful reading of all the posts here I came to understand that there are even more ways to cheat than multiple ladder accounts. Therefore, I decided to develop a new game, which I am personally convinced that will be at least as good as Wesnoth, but will be very different. The design and coding has already started. In the new game, we will make our best attempt to detect and ban as many cheating attempts as possible. For this I need a list of all cheatings that we can think of in the current Wesnoth ladder. Starting from a former post by anoel, here is a list to start.
Ways we can imagine how to cheat in Wesnoth ladder:
use multiple accounts for ladder
change the game code or ladder code
change game settings (if the opponent doesnt notice)
report wins vs inactives
report wins twice
try to use dc in your favor
make deals with others (let someone win)
hack the ladder database
open up saved maps during multiplayer game to spy on enemy
spend more time than allowed to take your turn by asking for AFK, and other excuses
ladder admin abusing power to ban players, promote players, create loopholes that only they know about, etc.
Please respond with additional cheating that you can IMAGINE. We will try to write code that will provide a technical solution, for as many of these problems/cheats as possible.
Again, I am looking for ideas how to cheat, in order to SEARCH for solutions. I am NOT accusing anyone.
If you are a skilled C# programmer and have a strong feeling to contribute to a new game development, then please email me.
Thank you.
Regarding Rigor’s post of having an idea that has “potential to make everybody happy”, I am sorry to report that after reading the post several times, it does not make me happy, so word “everybody” is off the table. The idea, AGAIN, is based on TRUST of people not cheating and uses the Leo example, which is a gross oversimplification of the set of problems. I decided to stop arguing my points here (so no need calling me names any more) and instead of trying to fix a broken ladder, I considered building my own. However, after careful reading of all the posts here I came to understand that there are even more ways to cheat than multiple ladder accounts. Therefore, I decided to develop a new game, which I am personally convinced that will be at least as good as Wesnoth, but will be very different. The design and coding has already started. In the new game, we will make our best attempt to detect and ban as many cheating attempts as possible. For this I need a list of all cheatings that we can think of in the current Wesnoth ladder. Starting from a former post by anoel, here is a list to start.
Ways we can imagine how to cheat in Wesnoth ladder:
use multiple accounts for ladder
change the game code or ladder code
change game settings (if the opponent doesnt notice)
report wins vs inactives
report wins twice
try to use dc in your favor
make deals with others (let someone win)
hack the ladder database
open up saved maps during multiplayer game to spy on enemy
spend more time than allowed to take your turn by asking for AFK, and other excuses
ladder admin abusing power to ban players, promote players, create loopholes that only they know about, etc.
Please respond with additional cheating that you can IMAGINE. We will try to write code that will provide a technical solution, for as many of these problems/cheats as possible.
Again, I am looking for ideas how to cheat, in order to SEARCH for solutions. I am NOT accusing anyone.
If you are a skilled C# programmer and have a strong feeling to contribute to a new game development, then please email me.
Thank you.