Optional player's rating

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
User avatar
EarthCake
Posts: 350
Joined: March 29th, 2019, 1:57 pm
Location: Dragonstone

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by EarthCake » June 18th, 2019, 2:21 pm

josteph wrote:
June 18th, 2019, 2:17 pm
sergey wrote:
June 18th, 2019, 10:57 am
How about adding a message to the multiplayer lobby to advertise the ladder? E.g. "There is no official Wesnoth ranking/stat system for online play. You can still use an unofficial ladder <link to the website> that is not related to the Wesnoth development team."
The lobby message links to the server rules, right? We could add a FAQ there "Is there a Wesnoth ladder?" with info. And ladder games can say "ladder" in the game title in order to advertise the existence of ladders.
Ladder games actually do have to have "Ladder" or "L-" in name.

Megac1
Posts: 4
Joined: November 13th, 2017, 8:25 pm

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by Megac1 » June 19th, 2019, 1:08 pm

I like to play multiplayer, but sometimes there is not a lot of people to play with. I think that player's rating can encourage people to play more. And I think that the problem of someone cheating the elo system is not that bad. Putting a player's rating or a competitive game mode 1v1 like there is in ladder would be great for multiplayer.

shevegen
Posts: 226
Joined: June 3rd, 2004, 4:35 pm

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by shevegen » June 22nd, 2019, 7:55 am

> I think that player's rating can encourage people to play more.

That is one assumption - the other may be that fewer players may play as a consequence.

I don't have a real pro or con opinion, although I am mostly sceptical.

But I believe that you could state that player rating may be optional for testing only,
and removed at a later time if feedback is too negative. Have some players make
dummy accounts or something and test the feature for some time before deciding.

Ratings WILL affect player decisions - I think we all must agree on this, whether
this is good or bad, there will be an effect.

ThinkSome
Posts: 13
Joined: July 9th, 2019, 9:33 pm

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by ThinkSome » July 25th, 2019, 11:34 pm

Greetings from springrts-land.

What I know of the springrts "elo" system and what you may learn from it/me:
- it implements trueskill (tm)
- winning over higher rated players (or higher rated team) gives you more points than winning over lower rated players.
- there is an option to cloak your trueskill which is on by default (others will only see something +- 10% of the real value)
- it made a lot of people (including myself) nervous about ratings
- it resulted in endless pre-match player reshuffling, bordering on match-fixing.
- there were reports of newbies/low-performers being kicked ingame and their forces seized
- there were reports of newbies/low-performers being team-killed and their resources seized
- since there is mostly one room active per game, it made for a newbie-unfriendly environment
- it is implemented by automated lobby hosting bots (SPADS) querying a database lobby bot (SLDB)

https://github.com/Yaribz/SPADS
https://github.com/Yaribz/SLDB

If you choose to implement it, then don't reinvent the wheel, use copy&paste!

bproberts
Posts: 24
Joined: July 9th, 2014, 10:49 pm

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by bproberts » July 26th, 2019, 8:52 pm

There's a lot of worrying about weird edge cases and already solved problems in this thread. There are thousands of games with rating systems and millions of players in them all over the world dealing with these problems every day. If they can handle it, so can we.

Don't want a rating? Fine, make the system opt in only, or hidden by default. Most players don't bother with the ladder now, so no/hidden score will probably be the norm.

People being jerks about other people's ratings? Warn, mute, ban. There's are 25 active players on the ladder, unless the player count increases by an order of magnitude, and most of them are jerks, it's not like the mods will be swamped.

People cheating, hacking, etc.? If we get to the point where this is a serious issue, pat ourselves on the back for making Wesnoth more popular than it's ever been and see what we can do. Until then; check replays/logs, note patterns of the same player having issues repeatedly, warn, and ban.

Disconnects: You've got until your timer runs down. At that point, the other player continues the game, or waits, at their discretion. Your inability to have a stable internet connection is not your opponent's problem. Fix it, only play casual games, or tell your opponent up front and hope they're nice about it.

User avatar
Pentarctagon
Forum Administrator
Posts: 3982
Joined: March 22nd, 2009, 10:50 pm
Location: Earth (occasionally)

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by Pentarctagon » July 27th, 2019, 5:03 am

This isn't a topic that's really been open to much discussion before, so not considering how this sort of change could impact this particular community wouldn't be a good idea either.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code

bproberts
Posts: 24
Joined: July 9th, 2014, 10:49 pm

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by bproberts » July 27th, 2019, 5:22 am

Why would ranked play effect the Wesnoth community any differently than how it affects any other community? Again, there are literally thousands of games with ranking systems, stretching back decades. As far as I know, there has never been a game that suddenly imploded on itself because ranking was introduced. If someone doesn't want to play ranked, or don't want their rating to be visible, that's fine. They can continue to play pick up games the way they have been for the last decade. If someone goes in chat and starts flaming, because "OMG you're a rank 20 scrub, can you even beat Bay of Pearls? STFU NOOB!" then ban them. If someone disconnects half way through every game they start to lose, ban them. None of this is new, it's the same thing that mods already do on the forums. There's nothing to figure out about Wesnoth ranked that hasn't been figured out by dozens of other mod teams, internet chess servers, and game studios. There are 25 players ranked on the ladder right now. If that number doubled because official ranked was added, and half of those players were hackers, flamers, or whatever, that'd still only be a dozen problem users to deal with.

User avatar
Pentarctagon
Forum Administrator
Posts: 3982
Joined: March 22nd, 2009, 10:50 pm
Location: Earth (occasionally)

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by Pentarctagon » July 27th, 2019, 5:58 am

Moving forward without considering the possible outcomes is a very good way to have unintended consequences. Moreover, it seems rather unlikely that out of all the thousands of games spanning decades that have had ranked matches, there have been none where it proved detrimental. So essentially saying "it worked lots of other places so it must work here as well" is, frankly, not very convincing.

There's also the question of whether how many/if any current ladder players would want to have this be connected officially to Wesnoth in the first place. If barely anyone wants this integration, why add it?

And even if everything were to go smoothly and everyone supported adding ranked to Wesnoth, the chances of this being implemented any time soon are slim, unless someone new wants to step forward to implement it. Wesnoth isn't exactly swimming in developers with spare time and nothing to do, so at least coming up with a solid plan would be the first good step.

The moderation aspect is also not so simple. I can count the number of active forum and MP moderators combined on one hand, and we're all essentially volunteering our spare time to do this. Is it likely that we'd be suddenly overwhelmed with tons of problematic users? No. But simply saying that moderators will be able to handle whatever happens is just inviting problems to happen.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code

bproberts
Posts: 24
Joined: July 9th, 2014, 10:49 pm

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by bproberts » July 27th, 2019, 12:42 pm

Pentarctagon wrote:
July 27th, 2019, 5:58 am
Moving forward without considering the possible outcomes is a very good way to have unintended consequences. Moreover, it seems rather unlikely that out of all the thousands of games spanning decades that have had ranked matches, there have been none where it proved detrimental. So essentially saying "it worked lots of other places so it must work here as well" is, frankly, not very convincing.
This is utterly backwards. All signs point to adding ranking leading to a minor bump in player numbers/games played, and none of it points to any negative consequence. In the event that it is a problem, the plug could simply be pulled, and we're back to where we are now, with no problems other than a few hurt feelings. We have a sample size of thousands of games that have ranked multiplayer, from which I can find no evidence of any instance ranked play hurt the game. We can find several topics asking for ranked in Wesnoth. We can find an entire ranked system that was developed and paid for by players, because they wanted it so badly. The only reasons I see anyone giving against it concerns that it will lead to bullying or hacking. We have systems in place to deal with both, and neither is likely to be a major issue given the current player counts. If there is little evidence that something will be harmful, and significant evidence that it is desirable, it makes sense to move forward with planning/testing, not clutch pearls about hypotheticals that have little basis in reality and can be dealt with using the tools we already have.
There's also the question of whether how many/if any current ladder players would want to have this be connected officially to Wesnoth in the first place. If barely anyone wants this integration, why add it?
Again, this is looking at the situation in reverse. "Not enough people want it," is a hypothetical reason to make something a low priority, not a reason to say "this would be bad for the game." The premise that players would prefer to use a third party website, rather than having information integrated into the client runs counter to the fact that a number of players have specifically asked for in game ranking, and basic common sense. It's akin to saying that Wesnoth should only have PBEM multiplayer, because why would anyone want simultaneous MP in client? or why should we have chat in game when people can just IM each other?
And even if everything were to go smoothly and everyone supported adding ranked to Wesnoth, the chances of this being implemented any time soon are slim, unless someone new wants to step forward to implement it. Wesnoth isn't exactly swimming in developers with spare time and nothing to do, so at least coming up with a solid plan would be the first good step.
This is contrary to how planning/proposals work in any organization I've ever participated in. People very rarely spend days drawing up a detailed plan for something, if they're told from the get go, "no this is a bad idea, and will not even be seriously considered." The offsite ladder already implemented ranked, we have a working plan for the basics, but no one is going to put in significantly more effort when the concept is getting shot down at the proposal stage. If people are open to it, I'd be happy to open some topics in the relevant forums to get opinions on how players would like it to work, run test leagues to simulate possible systems, etc. but not on something that's verboten.
The moderation aspect is also not so simple. I can count the number of active forum and MP moderators combined on one hand, and we're all essentially volunteering our spare time to do this. Is it likely that we'd be suddenly overwhelmed with tons of problematic users? No. But simply saying that moderators will be able to handle whatever happens is just inviting problems to happen.
If this is a serious concern, then recruit some new mods. Put an announcement on here, in the IRC/Discord, or the server MOTD. Again, this is treating a problem which every single online community deals with like it's a completely novel situation. Websites, forums, servers, etc. get new mods all the time. You ask the community who wants to do it, use a questionnaire to weed out the first round of applicants if there are enough to warrant, and conduct interviews on the rest. If the current admin team doesn't want to do it, they can tell whoever in the community is working on ranked that they need to have an additional X moderator candidates lined up before it can be pushed into testing.

The current team doesn't have to shoulder this burden alone, there are obviously numerous people interested in ranked, some of whom have already put in the effort setting up ladders, tournaments, modified eras, etc., but you can't expect people to put in the work if the topic is shot down the second it's posted.

User avatar
Pentarctagon
Forum Administrator
Posts: 3982
Joined: March 22nd, 2009, 10:50 pm
Location: Earth (occasionally)

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by Pentarctagon » July 27th, 2019, 3:32 pm

bproberts wrote:
July 27th, 2019, 12:42 pm
Pentarctagon wrote:
July 27th, 2019, 5:58 am
Moving forward without considering the possible outcomes is a very good way to have unintended consequences. Moreover, it seems rather unlikely that out of all the thousands of games spanning decades that have had ranked matches, there have been none where it proved detrimental. So essentially saying "it worked lots of other places so it must work here as well" is, frankly, not very convincing.
This is utterly backwards. All signs point to adding ranking leading to a minor bump in player numbers/games played, and none of it points to any negative consequence. In the event that it is a problem, the plug could simply be pulled, and we're back to where we are now, with no problems other than a few hurt feelings. We have a sample size of thousands of games that have ranked multiplayer, from which I can find no evidence of any instance ranked play hurt the game. We can find several topics asking for ranked in Wesnoth. We can find an entire ranked system that was developed and paid for by players, because they wanted it so badly. The only reasons I see anyone giving against it concerns that it will lead to bullying or hacking. We have systems in place to deal with both, and neither is likely to be a major issue given the current player counts. If there is little evidence that something will be harmful, and significant evidence that it is desirable, it makes sense to move forward with planning/testing, not clutch pearls about hypotheticals that have little basis in reality and can be dealt with using the tools we already have.
There's also the question of whether how many/if any current ladder players would want to have this be connected officially to Wesnoth in the first place. If barely anyone wants this integration, why add it?
Again, this is looking at the situation in reverse. "Not enough people want it," is a hypothetical reason to make something a low priority, not a reason to say "this would be bad for the game." The premise that players would prefer to use a third party website, rather than having information integrated into the client runs counter to the fact that a number of players have specifically asked for in game ranking, and basic common sense. It's akin to saying that Wesnoth should only have PBEM multiplayer, because why would anyone want simultaneous MP in client? or why should we have chat in game when people can just IM each other?
And even if everything were to go smoothly and everyone supported adding ranked to Wesnoth, the chances of this being implemented any time soon are slim, unless someone new wants to step forward to implement it. Wesnoth isn't exactly swimming in developers with spare time and nothing to do, so at least coming up with a solid plan would be the first good step.
This is contrary to how planning/proposals work in any organization I've ever participated in. People very rarely spend days drawing up a detailed plan for something, if they're told from the get go, "no this is a bad idea, and will not even be seriously considered." The offsite ladder already implemented ranked, we have a working plan for the basics, but no one is going to put in significantly more effort when the concept is getting shot down at the proposal stage. If people are open to it, I'd be happy to open some topics in the relevant forums to get opinions on how players would like it to work, run test leagues to simulate possible systems, etc. but not on something that's verboten.
I have said multiple times that I am not opposed to the concept. However, I won't agree that I support something without knowing specifically what I would be supporting, nor will you likely get any current developer interested in implementing it for the same (and other) reasons.
bproberts wrote:
July 27th, 2019, 12:42 pm
The moderation aspect is also not so simple. I can count the number of active forum and MP moderators combined on one hand, and we're all essentially volunteering our spare time to do this. Is it likely that we'd be suddenly overwhelmed with tons of problematic users? No. But simply saying that moderators will be able to handle whatever happens is just inviting problems to happen.
If this is a serious concern, then recruit some new mods. Put an announcement on here, in the IRC/Discord, or the server MOTD. Again, this is treating a problem which every single online community deals with like it's a completely novel situation. Websites, forums, servers, etc. get new mods all the time. You ask the community who wants to do it, use a questionnaire to weed out the first round of applicants if there are enough to warrant, and conduct interviews on the rest. If the current admin team doesn't want to do it, they can tell whoever in the community is working on ranked that they need to have an additional X moderator candidates lined up before it can be pushed into testing.

The current team doesn't have to shoulder this burden alone, there are obviously numerous people interested in ranked, some of whom have already put in the effort setting up ladders, tournaments, modified eras, etc., but you can't expect people to put in the work if the topic is shot down the second it's posted.
It's treating it like a problem that has, in fact, been a problem before. To quote Noy, as one example:
However even then this year we witnessed the Ladder almost collapse due to rampant cheating.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code

bproberts
Posts: 24
Joined: July 9th, 2014, 10:49 pm

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by bproberts » July 27th, 2019, 3:52 pm

The ladder has 25 players, and less than 50 games a week. It already has collapsed. One post from nearly a decade ago is not proof that a functional ladder is impossible. What, specifically, makes implementing ranked so difficult in Wesnoth?

User avatar
Pentarctagon
Forum Administrator
Posts: 3982
Joined: March 22nd, 2009, 10:50 pm
Location: Earth (occasionally)

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by Pentarctagon » July 27th, 2019, 4:47 pm

bproberts wrote:
July 27th, 2019, 3:52 pm
The ladder has 25 players, and less than 50 games a week. It already has collapsed. One post from nearly a decade ago is not proof that a functional ladder is impossible. What, specifically, makes implementing ranked so difficult in Wesnoth?
Historically, there has been a feeling that MP in general, and the ladder in particular, were unwanted sources of conflict and drama. This is partially what led to MP not being as well developed (beyond MP being tacked on top of an originally single player only game) - developers often played MP much less, if at all, simply because even non-ranked was considered toxic. Enabling the registration requirement for accessing the official MP server, which we talked about in another thread, was my own attempt to at least somewhat improve the situation since the forum software has significantly more useful moderation tools available than wesnoth's server software does (and I've been submitting my own (minor) changes for 1.15/1.16 to hopefully help a bit more).

So I guess fundamentally, the question/problem is that from my perspective, it looks like having an unofficial ladder already didn't really work. How would having an official ladder give a different result? Would there be some sort of rules change to help address the previous failings? Would there need to be a change to Wesnoth's code to support this? How many more moderators might be needed, how much more work might there be, and how would we deal with accusations of cheating, which are usually difficult if not impossible to conclusively prove (though this would be more of a question for myself than for you)?

For example, would we build in functionality to Wesnoth to record the outcomes of matches, make that data publicly available, and then say "do what you will with it"?
99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code

bproberts
Posts: 24
Joined: July 9th, 2014, 10:49 pm

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by bproberts » July 27th, 2019, 6:16 pm

Historically, there has been a feeling that MP in general, and the ladder in particular, were unwanted sources of conflict and drama.
Again, thousands of other games manage to have multiplayer and ranked, without devolving into toxic cesspools. Either the weight of evidence proves that this is a non-issue, or Wesnoth's player base is somehow so vile that they can't handle something that Starcraft, Chess, Mortal Kombat, Football, Pool, Bowling, Scrabble, Quake, Foosball. etc. can. If the Wesnoth community is that bad, that's on the devs, since the community is basically dead except for them at this point.
This is partially what led to MP not being as well developed (beyond MP being tacked on top of an originally single player only game) - developers often played MP much less, if at all, simply because even non-ranked was considered toxic.

Enabling the registration requirement for accessing the official MP server, which we talked about in another thread, was my own attempt to at least somewhat improve the situation since the forum software has significantly more useful moderation tools available than wesnoth's server software does (and I've been submitting my own (minor) changes for 1.15/1.16 to hopefully help a bit more).
So let me ask you, as the Forum Admin, what is the level of toxicity you're seeing under the current system, since it's apparently a major concern? I haven't played much MP lately, but when I was more active it never struck me as a problem. Toxicity is a pretty measurable phenomenon. Are players cursing each other out every match? Every third match? Are lobbies turning into flame wars regularly? Is there a white supremacist cult using Wesnoth to organize? If this is an issue, it should be documented, etc. If it is problematic, what procedures do you currently use to resolve it, and how could the community support/improve them?
So I guess fundamentally, the question/problem is that from my perspective, it looks like having an unofficial ladder already didn't really work. How would having an official ladder give a different result?
The fact that people wouldn't have to go looking for it would be the largest help. When most people play a game, they don't go poring through the forums looking for things, or clicking a half dozen links deep through multiple websites to try and find what they want, they open the game and push buttons. How many potential players aren't on the ladder because they simply don't know it exists?

Not having to follow a convoluted multistep process just to start a game, would be great as well. Even the hackiest ladders I've used for indie games, mods, etc. are simpler than the unofficial ladder. The current rules list a full dozen steps just for setting up a game, plus others for player names, rules in the game, etc.

A matchmaking system would be an enormous help. We'll probably never get to the point where we have a AAA game style "push the button, get a match" feature, but even something as basic as a way to find all players within 10% of your rating would be hugely beneficial. The purpose of a ladder/ranking system (for most players) isn't to be the best, it's to measure skill and find opponents who are similar.
Would the would there be some sort of rules change to help address the previous failings?
Most likely. The rules for the current ladder are simultaneously extremely long and convoluted, but also don't don't answer basic questions. Cackfiend and anyone else who has helped run the ladder in the past would certainly have loads of valuable input on what has/hasn't worked for them, things they wish they could do, but would need official support for, etc. Players who are active on the ladder could be surveyed for what they like/dislike about the current setup, as well as those who are interested. There's a number of players who have put forth considerable effort on ladder related ventures already, despite lack of interest at best, and sometimes discouragement by the dev team. If their efforts were met by even marginal support, you'd see even more.
Would there need to be a change to Wesnoth's code to support this?
At this point, just taking the current unofficial ladder and advertising it in game would be a huge improvement. This would require no changes whatsoever, just a link in the server message, etc. An additional sorting option for Ladder Maps in the map selector (in the same way that we currently have Scenario, Campaign, and Random) would be useful, with minimal code support. A "Ladder Settings" button, similar to the current "Use Maps Setting" check box would help.

Again, in an ideal world we would have all kinds of extra functions like cheat detection, fully automated matchmaking and score keeping, etc. but just getting to something functional/accessible wouldn't take much.
How many more moderators might be needed, how much more work might there be,
This is impossible to answer, and, frankly, disingenuous to even ask. It depends on how active the ladder is, and how those players behave. Maybe it'll run great, and we won't need anymore. Maybe we'll need one more, or half a dozen. How many moderators do we currently have, and what's their workload like? Who, if anyone, helps Cackfiend manage the current ladder, and how much do they do? Short answer? I'd recruit one or two more and work from there.
and how would we deal with accusations of cheating, which are usually difficult if not impossible to conclusively prove (though this would be more of a question for myself than for you)?
Why is cheating so much more difficult to prove in Wesnoth than any other game? Internet chess is no harder to cheat at than Wesnoth, but millions of people play it everyday.

Why do we need to conclusively prove anything? We're not working with capital punishment here, we're talking about a video game server. Worst case scenario, we make a mistake and someone gets banned/quits, they're in the exact same scenario they're in now, no harm done.

Why is the dev team so fixated on cheating? It happens in every sport/game at every level. People deal with it. If other games/sports were as concerned with cheating as the dev team, there wouldn't be a single competitive game played, because the standard is impossible.
For example, would we build in functionality to Wesnoth to record the outcomes of matches, make that data publicly available, and then say "do what you will with it"?
This would be one option, it's certainly not the only one. Again, the two biggest problems for ranking in Wesnoth currently are:

1. Lack accessibility. Just making the current unofficial ladder more visible would be a huge first step.

2. Dev hostility. It's one thing for the devs to say, "We're not interested in ranked. It's not a priority for us, but it could become part of the game if members of the community step up to help with implementation." The current situation is closer to, "Don't want ranked, won't do ranked, don't even want to talk about ranked." This topic has been the most productive one on it I've seen on it, and it's hardly a shining example.

User avatar
Pentarctagon
Forum Administrator
Posts: 3982
Joined: March 22nd, 2009, 10:50 pm
Location: Earth (occasionally)

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by Pentarctagon » July 27th, 2019, 7:46 pm

bproberts wrote:
July 27th, 2019, 6:16 pm
Historically, there has been a feeling that MP in general, and the ladder in particular, were unwanted sources of conflict and drama.
Again, thousands of other games manage to have multiplayer and ranked, without devolving into toxic cesspools. Either the weight of evidence proves that this is a non-issue, or Wesnoth's player base is somehow so vile that they can't handle something that Starcraft, Chess, Mortal Kombat, Football, Pool, Bowling, Scrabble, Quake, Foosball. etc. can. If the Wesnoth community is that bad, that's on the devs, since the community is basically dead except for them at this point.
I feel like this is beating a dead horse at this point, so let me be completely clear: This has previously been a problem for Wesnoth. If there are things we can take and use from how other communities have done this, then great. But ultimately, I don't care about the sheer number of other games and communities that this has ended up working out for. I care about making sure Wesnoth doesn't run into the same problems with MP it did before.
bproberts wrote:
July 27th, 2019, 6:16 pm
This is partially what led to MP not being as well developed (beyond MP being tacked on top of an originally single player only game) - developers often played MP much less, if at all, simply because even non-ranked was considered toxic.

Enabling the registration requirement for accessing the official MP server, which we talked about in another thread, was my own attempt to at least somewhat improve the situation since the forum software has significantly more useful moderation tools available than wesnoth's server software does (and I've been submitting my own (minor) changes for 1.15/1.16 to hopefully help a bit more).
So let me ask you, as the Forum Admin, what is the level of toxicity you're seeing under the current system, since it's apparently a major concern? I haven't played much MP lately, but when I was more active it never struck me as a problem. Toxicity is a pretty measurable phenomenon. Are players cursing each other out every match? Every third match? Are lobbies turning into flame wars regularly? Is there a white supremacist cult using Wesnoth to organize? If this is an issue, it should be documented, etc. If it is problematic, what procedures do you currently use to resolve it, and how could the community support/improve them?
Currently? Not much. And less than 1.12. But I expect it would increase dramatically if competitive play became popular.
bproberts wrote:
July 27th, 2019, 6:16 pm
Would the would there be some sort of rules change to help address the previous failings?
Most likely. The rules for the current ladder are simultaneously extremely long and convoluted, but also don't don't answer basic questions. Cackfiend and anyone else who has helped run the ladder in the past would certainly have loads of valuable input on what has/hasn't worked for them, things they wish they could do, but would need official support for, etc. Players who are active on the ladder could be surveyed for what they like/dislike about the current setup, as well as those who are interested. There's a number of players who have put forth considerable effort on ladder related ventures already, despite lack of interest at best, and sometimes discouragement by the dev team. If their efforts were met by even marginal support, you'd see even more.
Would there need to be a change to Wesnoth's code to support this?
At this point, just taking the current unofficial ladder and advertising it in game would be a huge improvement. This would require no changes whatsoever, just a link in the server message, etc. An additional sorting option for Ladder Maps in the map selector (in the same way that we currently have Scenario, Campaign, and Random) would be useful, with minimal code support. A "Ladder Settings" button, similar to the current "Use Maps Setting" check box would help.

Again, in an ideal world we would have all kinds of extra functions like cheat detection, fully automated matchmaking and score keeping, etc. but just getting to something functional/accessible wouldn't take much.
I can speak only for myself, but if someone were to propose what those rules would be, what changes to Wesnoth itself would be needed, and how disputes would be handled, I would keep an open mind about it.
bproberts wrote:
July 27th, 2019, 6:16 pm
and how would we deal with accusations of cheating, which are usually difficult if not impossible to conclusively prove (though this would be more of a question for myself than for you)?
Why is cheating so much more difficult to prove in Wesnoth than any other game? Internet chess is no harder to cheat at than Wesnoth, but millions of people play it everyday.

Why do we need to conclusively prove anything? We're not working with capital punishment here, we're talking about a video game server. Worst case scenario, we make a mistake and someone gets banned/quits, they're in the exact same scenario they're in now, no harm done.

Why is the dev team so fixated on cheating? It happens in every sport/game at every level. People deal with it. If other games/sports were as concerned with cheating as the dev team, there wouldn't be a single competitive game played, because the standard is impossible.
Because it's trivial to accomplish. Or even simpler, one person can save the current turn of the match, then open the save file locally and view all information about the opposing side. Wesnoth's MP server software does no validation whatsoever about the game state - it just passes information between clients, and then lets them know if one client tries to do something another client thinks is impossible (aka OOS errors).

This goes back to when I said that Wesnoth tacked MP on top of a single player only game - someone would need to re-architect how Wesnoth implements and handles MP in order for there to be any sort of proper "cheat detection".
bproberts wrote:
July 27th, 2019, 6:16 pm
For example, would we build in functionality to Wesnoth to record the outcomes of matches, make that data publicly available, and then say "do what you will with it"?
This would be one option, it's certainly not the only one. Again, the two biggest problems for ranking in Wesnoth currently are:

1. Lack accessibility. Just making the current unofficial ladder more visible would be a huge first step.

2. Dev hostility. It's one thing for the devs to say, "We're not interested in ranked. It's not a priority for us, but it could become part of the game if members of the community step up to help with implementation." The current situation is closer to, "Don't want ranked, won't do ranked, don't even want to talk about ranked." This topic has been the most productive one on it I've seen on it, and it's hardly a shining example.
I bring up that option as a specific example, since it's something I personally would be interested in trying me hand at, if/when I have time. There are a lot of other useful things we could do with that information besides anything ladder related. Like I said above though, I will at least keep an open mind if anyone else has any other ideas.
Last edited by Pentarctagon on July 28th, 2019, 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed specific example of how to cheat
99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code

Yomar
Posts: 287
Joined: October 27th, 2011, 5:14 am
Contact:

Re: Optional player's rating

Post by Yomar » July 27th, 2019, 8:02 pm

Disconnects: You've got until your timer runs down. At that point, the other player continues the game, or waits, at their discretion. Your inability to have a stable internet connection is not your opponent's problem. Fix it, only play casual games, or tell your opponent up front and hope they're nice about it.
It's also not always fault of who looses connection, maybe he simply can't fix it, or he has an power outage cause bad weather or other reasons, his computer or the game crashes, or he faints lol.
For this I'm usually very flexible with my opponents in case of problems.

Beside this, regarding to players ranking, I think that this goes against the spirit of BFW, If you really like ranked games, just join Wesnoth ladder.
(As me personally, I'm not strictly against it, but I also don't feel the necessity of this feature, maybee some would like it but then others probably would not.)

Post Reply