Ladder Site Online...

[Cackfiend]

so i just checked the ladder page and it looks like leocrotta and demogorgon are both Blocked atm

really rigor?

at worst i could see blocking the demogorgon alias, but wtf are you doing seriously?

[nelson]

Hi folks,

I am of the opinion that having multiple accounts is definitely a problem *so long as the accounts are secret*. If the multiple accounts are secret then we cannot tell when the player is using the accounts to cheat in ways such as playing the accounts against one another. If the multiple accounts are known to be the same player, then it is easy to tell when the player is engaging in problematic behavior that needs to be discussed/addressed somehow. Additionally, if the effect of multiple accounts on the ladder rankings of lower players is a problem, *knowing* which accounts are duplicates allows you to do the math to determine your real ranking.

I think the best thing we could do is create some easy way to identify secondary accounts, give amnesty to players who come clean, and punish people who do not come clean about their multiple accounts and are discovered somehow. Granted, I cannot imagine how they would be discovered, but I think that secret secondary accounts are much more disturbing than known secondary accounts.

I understand that we cannot make modifications to the ladder code or ladder website without a developer. How can one become a developer on the ladder code/website? I am a very noobish coder but I might be able to make minor modifications, and I'd be willing to jump through whatever hoops are necessary to gain access. It seems like there are a lot of minor modifications one could make to the ladder code that could improve people's experience dramatically.

[Oook]

Firstly, to Rigor (or any other ladder admins): can you please unblock nani's accounts while this discussion takes place? I think that would help improve the tone of the thread, as it would be less about one person's situation, and more about what ladder players want from the rules in general.

It was already explained multiple times now how using 2 or more accounts makes a difference even if you don't cheat with them outright (see my first post or Velensk's or Faello's posts). I would like to hear from you and all other with a similar opinion why this doesn't matter (other than "I don't care").

Ok, here's my take on it.

First thing is that they will have multiple entries in the ranking. Why should this be allowed? It obviously pushes the lower ranks further down making the ranking more inaccurate. Just imagine if every single active player had 2 or more active accounts in the ladder, the ranking would be worthless.

I agree that multiple active accounts will obviously have an impact on the ranking. However, rankings already fluctuate quite a lot. Mine goes up / down several places depending on which old hands have played their game this month, and this effect will obviously be magnified the lower down the ladder you go. Also, the elo on which the ranking is based is simply the best current approximation, not an exact measure of skill, so natural fluctuations in players' elo will also lead to ranking changes, even if their skill level has not really altered. In short, relative rankings of players clustered round a particular rating will not be very meaningful anyway. To pick a random example: current places 21, 22, 23 have respective ratings of 2071, 2070, 2068. Do you think these rankings tell you anything useful? Any actual difference will be drowned out by noise.

What is far more useful is seeing what cluster of players you are grouped with - who you are of similar strength to. You can also look at the group above, see who you should be aiming to get as good as The Class Sort on the ladder does this to some extent, but I find it more useful just to look at the ladder list, and see how it breaks naturally. Looking at it this way, it doesn't matter if there are 30 people above you, or 35, or 40. What matters is the relative position of the cluster you are in - if you're in the 3rd, 4th, 5th cluster etc. In these terms, the effect of second accounts is negligible - sure, Demo being there means there's an extra person ranked above most of us, but he doesn't really represent a cluster all by himself. True, there could be situations where a group of second accounts formed a cluster, but it's unlikely there would be no first account in there as well, unless the higher group was so far above that comparing strengths would be pretty meaningless anyway.

The one area where aliases would have a significant difference is near the top. If you're counting places, I guess 6th rather than 5th could be a big deal Certainly more so that 26th rather than 25th. I don't really have any argument here, other than it doesn't seem like a big deal to me - of course, your mileage may vary, but be careful that we don't lose too much elsewhere just for this point.

Of course, one possible solution to aliases affecting rankings would be to have an 'unranked' checkbox. The account would still be rated, but not appear in the rankings. This could also be used by people who want good quality games, but aren't fussed by ladder climbing. Drawback - would need modification of the ladder code.

You can also try to defeat higher ranked players with a lower account while you hog the easy points with the other one.

Indeed, but as has been pointed out by Dauntless, this only works if you sandbag the second account (deliberately lose games against weaker players), as otherwise you will still be accurately rated, and so give / get fair points from the top players with either account. I think it's easy to change the rules to explicitly forbid this. Of course, people could try and cheat this way, but if they are willing to do that, they're also going to ignore any rules about second accounts anyway (given the inability to detect this). x Also, note that at the worst, this type of cheating will lower other players rankings a bit. It will never get you any higher, so it's only really practical as a cheat for players near the top. You can also try to defeat higher ranked players with a lower account while you hog the easy points with the other one.

And the last thing is reporting fake wins between the multiple accounts to gain free elo points which is obviously the worst manipulation.

Again, anyone cheating this way will do it, regardless of rules against second accounts. We simply have to trust top players to not cheat in this way, whether or not second accounts are permitted, so I don't think this is relevant to the discussion.

Both accounts are the same player, therefore both accounts represent the same amount of real skill. The accounts do not ever have separate skills even if one of them is only used when the player is not playing his best. However, because an account can be rated below a players real skill it can still entail a different amount of risk.

Velensk: can you define 'real skill' for me? Do you mean the maximum skill level a player is capable of, or their average skill across all games?

If you mean the latter, then that works best if all games are played in similar conditions. If games are played in quite different circumstances (e.g. full concentration / multitasking) the average won't describe either set particularly well. It would be like averaging you running speed and walking speed, and using the answer to predict how fast you'll travel. Far more useful to identify which set you're dealing with, and use the appropriate number for that.

If you mean 'maximum' level, then again, assuming the games are played under distinct circumstances, you're not playing against the same skill level in each case. The elo system simply measures the strength each account plays at. If one account is consistently weaker (not through deliberate mistakes, but distractions), then this will be reflected in the elo. If you still don't like the idea of the same person having different skill levels in different circumstances, think of it like 'average running speed' and 'average running speed when carrying a 5kg backpack'. Provided the circumstances *for each account* stay roughly constant, then each accounts rating will be more accurate to it than you'd get by averaging the two.

Of course, as you point out, it's possible the 'wrong' account could be used - distraction goes away etc. As Dauntless pointed out, if this happens more than occasionally, it will be taken into account in the rating for the weaker account. This does mean you have a small risk of the player being noticeably stronger than their rating, compared to a high chance they are close to (probably slightly under) their rating. It's also important to note that this also happens with single accounts. I only have the one account - when I'm having a bad day, playing while ill / drunk etc, I'll be playing below my maximum skill level. This will drag my rating down a bit, so anyone who plays me when I'm on top form will find me stronger than my elo suggests.

The fact that Leo and Demo had noticeably different ratings shows that they do play at consistently different strengths - when you play Leo, you have a smaller chance to win that when you play Demo. Splitting the games between the two in a way that is highly correlated to *actual* playing strength simply means that opponents are likely to be risking a fair number of points for each game. The reason it makes sense for points risked to be different depending on which account is logged it is that the choice of login is not a random process, it correlates well to the actual strength that will be played in that game. As you say, if there was no real difference between the ratings of the accounts, an alias would be pointless, but that's demonstrably not the case.

This assumes the person with multiple accounts is honest in how they use them. But as has been pointed out already, the only way they can gain an advantage is to sandbag to take unfair points off the opponent. For why that's not really an issue in this discussion, see my response to Kolbur earlier in this post.

[Dauntless]

Just a short off-topic comment to lighten this up a bit

Incidentally, I find it very funny that all of this was sparked by the KOTF Awards Ceremony.

SO how is my prize standing Doc?

[The Black Sword]

Well there seems to be 2 discussions here, the first, regarding the treatment of nani/leo/demo is the worst IMO.

I'd like to see both his accounts unblocked immediately, at least until the 2nd debate is settled, and an apology on ladder site for what seems like an incredibly biased and insulting approach. Daunt said he had 2 accounts and his is still active, I know a few other people and I'm sure you do too Rigor.
Seriously, I'd like to think I consider you as a friend (as much as possible of someone I've never met IRL) but this reaction seems terribly knee-jerk. What you say on the forums is one thing but that should not have been put up in your official admin capacity.

Regarding the second debate, I asked a question in my first post:

“After all what's the difference between a top ladder player starting with an alias and a top player who didn't previously play on the ladder creating an account?”

First point mentioned here is about having multiple entries in the rankings. I don't see this as a problem. We use the ELO system for a reason, because the the ratings are more accurate than saying simply, player X is 19th and player Y is 20th. The ELO ratings calculate the probability of 1 player winning against another IIRC and this is not changed by multiple entries.

Second point about sniping I didn't caveat in my first post and is obviously wrong and should be punished as such. Similarly with reporting wins against your second account. So long as aliases are not created to do this, there is no problem.

Another point was made, specifically with regard to nani, that he might not be able to keep his “personas” separate and Demo would sometimes play like Leo. This is no different from a regular account IMO. Personally I find I play better after football training, my mind feels very alert. In contrast, other times I won't feel like playing properly and might try som BURS or something like that. So my account has at least 3 “personas” who have different skill levels. My rating will gravitate to some average of the 3. To look at it differently, when the ELO system calculates the probability of me winning vs another player, it accounts for the probability of which of my “personas” will turn up. Similarly Demogorgons rating will account for the fact that sometimes he will be playing with this account and not be multitasking.

Are there any other answers to my question? I might have missed some, this has gotten really long.

Some other random responses;

I wouldn't be adverse to marking every alias as such and punishing appropriately, if possible, people who do not mark them. Then people who feel affected by points 1 and 4 above can choose to ignore the alias if they want.

I think someone made a point about only playing weak players with your main account. This shouldn't make a difference with the ELO system since you risk losing a lot of points if you lose and only gain a small amount if you win in comparison to playing better players.

In response to the very first point, I had been playing multiplayer for somewhere between 1-2 years when I joined the ladder and I had quite a good initial record I think. If you look up the Ambush tournament you can actually see Death mentioning that I might be an alias . It seems unfair to tar every new player who does well as an alias.

Also wanted to say that I really enjoyed all my games with Leo and Demogorgon (particularly Demogorgon and our leader travels actually ) and I hope you don't decide to leave Wesnoth because of this.

I wrote this before reading Oooks post above, apologies if he already mentioned some of my points. Also, FYI, I have only 1 account .

[Velensk]

@Oook

Real skill is how well a player will play under any condition. The maximum, the minimum, the average, all of them are factors and none of them convey it perfectly. If you are inclined to be in or put yourself in circumstances that decrease how well you play then this is a factor in your overall skill even if it has no effect on your maximum skill. People will vary over time (good days, bad days, luck swings, whatever) but I think that it is better that this be all represented in one account rather than having a "this is my bad day account, and this is my good day account'.

You say that taking it as an average is like taking the average of your running speed and walking speed. I find this perfectly fair. If you are going to choose to compete in a foot race or record your time when walking then you fully deserve to lose your standing (incidentally I do not believe this comparison is all that apt. Even a distracted expert wesnoth player is substantially better than a newbie whereas an Olympic athlete would have trouble beating a high school running in a foot race while walking). There is nothing to stop you from doing your walking elsewhere where it isn't rated when you feel like it and only ever racing when you feel like running.

I do not believe, that one should be able to say "Oh, I'm playing 2 people at once, therefore I'm not playing at full skill and should not count as the same person anymore." If you are choosing to do multiple things then that is just as valid a reason for you to be making foolish moves as 'I am stupid and I don't don't understand how this works' or 'I just don't care about this much'. Loses accumulated through this, and the wins your enemy makes are just as valid and should be worth just as much.

[Dauntless]

Velensk,
we get your idea. Its up to each person to decide if they agree with you or TBS on what is skill and how it should be understood.
I personally agree with TBS, Oook and others above.

Certainly when one doesnt feel at top shape, he can play a nonladder game or watch TV, but as stated above several times, a lot of players would prefer to play Demo rather than nobody at all. Disabling the Demogorgon account would effectively mean reducing the opportunity of playing the current best player in a rated game to a half...

[Velensk]

True enough, I probably would have left it at my last comment if he hadn't specifically asked me a question. Since I'm talking again though I'll add something else.

Personally, I cannot comprehend why anyone would have a problem playing non-ladder games if the point of the point of the ladder is to find skilled opponents. Once you've found them you should be fine just playing them even if you are not feeling like you're in top shape to compete and it's generally nice to know that it is them rather than ignoring an alias you were not aware of.

Of course if you regard the purpose of the ladder is to be a hyper competitive then I can see why you might rather that all games be ranked but in that event it seems like that would generate other reasons why having a second account is bad.

I like to play skilled opponents just as much as any ladder player (though I don't get frustrated by inept ones very easily unless they're on my team. As a result skilled players who are unwilling to play outside of ladder are an annoyance. It's even more annoying to know that they are actually quite willing to play games that are not for 'real ranking' but these games have to be on the ladder anyways.

[nani]

I hope you don't decide to leave Wesnoth because of this.

No, I'm not leaving wesnoth because of this. It's the other way round.
I planned on stopping to play ladder, that's why I revealed what was kept secret and hoped I could end my accounts by voluntarily retiring.
Thought this was at least the most noble gesture which was possible after what I, and many others, have done.
I'm glad to see even the ones arguing against aliases are disapproving the way I am treated.
I cannot overemphasize how disappointed I am to read something like this in the ladder news:

I am sad to tell you that our current number 1 leocrotta has been playing with his other alias Demogorgon since the 12th of Feb 2010 or in other words, one and a half years with a total of 199 games..

How Rigor deals with it is the only thing I totally disagree with in here.
I especially thank Dauntless for revealing he's using an aliases as well.

Daunt said he had 2 accounts and his is still active, I know a few other people and I'm sure you do too Rigor.

As I meantioned before iirc, this is building an example, it's not about discussing a way to deal with it in Rigor's eyes.
On the other hand the discussion itself seems to be overdue and is, mainly, interesting to follow.

Personally, I cannot comprehend why anyone would have a problem playing non-ladder games if the point of the point of the ladder is to find skilled opponents. Once you've found them you should be fine just playing them even if you are not feeling like you're in top shape to compete

I will do so whenever I will be back to play. For the Demo-account I was more or less just curious how far I could reach even though doing my work besides or watching a movie in a small corner window,
while on the other hand taking away the pressure to lose those games with leo. Yes, I do admit I liked leo's points, what's so wrong about that, I didn't want to waste the "work" I invested in it, just because
I wanted to play a game (and now the word) besides, though, as stated before, I still wanted to know how far I could reach, that's why it was ladder.
I can deal with people having different opinions about what I've done, and I agree with the elo-system being affected by it "slightly", I'm still fine with what I've done.
And tbh, playing Demo was more fun and more relaxing than playing leo, I know leo could've played these matches as well, but even though it's not measurable,
sometimes my mind wants to "play" and another time it wants a strategical war.
I was just separating by general mood of how I wanted to play, either concentrated on winning or just playing.
Demo winning against good opponents means I maybe just had a good day on the one hand, or the relaxation factor (not caring about leo's points I worked hard for) was high enough.
While leo losing matches, especially lately, was simply based on bad shape and severe miscalculations.
I hope you get my intentions by now, especially Velensk.

[Velensk]

Again someone picking me out.

I don't have a problem with your intentions or attitude towards playing. My problem is that I feel that what you are doing goes contrary to the point/principles of using the ladder.

EDIT: By extension, I feel that what you are doing would be fine outside a ladder environment.

[Doc Paterson]

Just a short off-topic comment to lighten this up a bit

Incidentally, I find it very funny that all of this was sparked by the KOTF Awards Ceremony.

SO how is my prize standing Doc?

Ha, oh yeah, we still need to discuss that. I'll send you a PM about it some time tomorrow, or maybe I'll see you on the server.

[Paxe]

Hey, good night

Just another point to make this disscussion more interesting:

Is it not the time for the TrueSkill?

Are we not in the inflex point to create this "new" ladder?

Lot of you had participate in this topic when we were informed last november 2010.


Maybe this is the time to leave this corrupted ladder as it is to be used by anyone who wants following or not the rules and start this Trueskill (best name and very apropiate, by the way...).

Well, I want to read your opinions and developers information about the building of this new Trueskill ladder...

Sincerely

Paxe

[nelson]

I believe I may have just discovered another secret secondary account: I just completed a game with Cremember (he defeated me soundly), and then a win against me with a description matching the game I just played was reported by Horde_King! It was instantaneously retracted, but the damage is done: This behavior is very suggestive of Cremember having been logged in under one of his alts (in this case Horde_King) and accidentally reporting the win under that account instead of his Cremember account.

If Cremember does indeed have an alt (and forgive me if he has already mentioned the existence of his alt), this would mean that the top three players (leocrotta, Dauntless, and Cremember) all use alts. Banning players who have used alts is completely unacceptable if our best and brightest have all used them. I think it's just necessary for everyone to come clean about their alternate accounts so that they can be watched for unethical behavior, and only punish people who do not come forward after an amnesty period and then are later discovered.

For the record, I have one other name I used when I first signed up (skyfaller) but I decided to use "nelson" as my name instead and I have been "nelson" on the Wesnoth ladder ever since. I do not use alts.

[Dauntless]

Interesting news nelson, I will be careful should I cross Horde_Kings path

As to keeping the aliases clean to keep track of cheating, rest assured that some of the Leviathans of the ladder usually keep track of whats going on on the ladder and most abuse of anything is sooner or later discovered
Especially leo was really good at this

[Doc Paterson]

Let's not look too carefully at #4 now....the entire top 5 might just be declared corrupt!

What I actually came here to say is unrelated to this current discussion (but relevant to the ladder) - that folks on the other forum should check out the map threads we've opened and share their thoughts.