Ladder Site Online...

[Velensk]

I have in fact tried to get 1vs1s outside the ladder. With one exception all the 1vs1s I've played for the past couple years have been outside ladder. I agree that if you are not selective about your opponents (and I'm not) most of the games you get will be against people who are not all that good however you can be selective and I've played plenty of challenging opponents since leaving the ladder. I agree that when they refuse to play non-ladder games it's annoying (it's the cause of the one exception) but honestly even many of the top ranked ladder players are quite willing to play casually especially if they know you. Aside, if you are not feeling in top condition and are not willing to risk your rating, then what right do you have to be overly selective of your opponents

[peace]

I have in fact tried to get 1vs1s outside the ladder. With one exception all the 1vs1s I've played for the past couple years have been outside ladder. I agree that if you are not selective about your opponents (and I'm not) most of the games you get will be against people who are not all that good however you can be selective and I've played plenty of challenging opponents since leaving the ladder. I agree that when they refuse to play non-ladder games it's annoying (it's the cause of the one exception) but honestly even many of the top ranked ladder players are quite willing to play casually especially if they know you. Aside, if you are not feeling in top condition and are not willing to risk your rating, then what right do you have to be overly selective of your opponents

As I stated in my last post it isn't about "not being willing to risk your rating", but about accuracy of the rating. If you play these games and the "serious" games with one account some of your opponents will be advantaged and some others disadvantaged. So when you're distracted, being selective about your opponents implies playing on ladder, and not wanting to screw the rating system (and by that I don't mean your own rating) additionaly implies playing with a second account.

[Velensk]

If you reguarly are distracted, that is a practical an effective part of your rating and I don't see why you should be allowed some kind of excemption from your disadvantage.

[peace]

Well, I don't see that either.
I just see that this rule is counterproductive because it makes the rating more imprecise (ratings, that imho should be distinct, are mixed) with already mentioned problems for the whole ladder (or at least the players that play against a sometimes distracted/non-serious player).

[Kolbur]

About the alias situation on the ladder:
Yes, there are/were a lot of aliases on the ladder BUT there are very few that are actually active at the same time! I think this makes a difference. If someone wants to abandon his old account to start a new one I maybe don't see much point in it but it's no big issue because it doesn't cause much problems (apart from the additional elo those players can steal away while they are still climbing after the first 10 games thx to their experience). The old name is gone and the player has a new one.
Now when one player has multiple active accounts for multiple purposes he can screw around with the ladder in many more ways. 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. 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. These are some of the reasons that there is a rule stating:

"You are only allowed to have one account. If you want to create a new account and delete your old please contact us and be ready to give eyerouge your password in order for us to verify that you're the real owner of the account that's about to be deleted."

So creating a new account is actually allowed, just no one bothers to get the old one deleted which wouldn't probably happen anyway.


Now nani/leocrotta/Demogorgon didn't do all the things I listed up there and I certainly don't want to accuse him of cheating. But he does have 2 active accounts and it does screw around with the ranking and it potentially does screw around with the elo of his opponents. See, while he claims that he used Demogorgon for multitasking only no one can actually prove this. What if the multitasking suddenly ends for some reason and he can put his full concentration on the game but losses? Shouldn't his opponent get the points for winning vs leocrotta? He doesn't get them, he only gets less points for defeating Demogorgon. It's hardly possible to maintain a consistent lower level of potential skill even if you want to do this intentional. The purposes of multiple active accounts is impossible to control so it's much more reasonable to simply disallow it.

I can understand the desire to play more casual games without the pressure of caring for your rating but I have to agree with Velensk at this point that there is a very simply solution to this problem: simply playing unrated games. Why didn't you do this, nani? Many ladder players would be ready to play an unrated game if you would just ask them for it if you care about a competent opponent.

@Oook: While there may be a lot of aliases around on the ladder not all of them are actually illegal regarding the current rules, only multiple active accounts at the same time are not allowed. I for one only know about 1 player with confirmed multiple active accounts at this point...
I knew about another but the second one isn't active anymore.
This also brings up another problem: It's not really easy to 100% confirm that 2 accounts belong to the same player. So the admins can't just run around and paint everyone red who could be an alias...

PS: If anyone wants to play ladder but in a casual way he is free to do that but he has to use his one account for this. If he wants to play serious in the ladder and less serious 1v1 games he can do the later ones unrated. Everything else can cause trouble like I exposed.

[Faello]

Faello: could you respond to my point about the two accounts being accurately rated for the circumstances they're used in? I feel that is a crucial point.

I already did. There's one player, there should be one rating. Ladder has rating, and rating is there to rate the players. Why should one player be rated according to his "good" and "bad days" accounts and other just use one account?

Ask yourself, is it fair to the other players that treat their accounts seriously? I don't think so.

I also wanted to point out that I'm not hitting at nani here. I'm speaking about everyone that does that. In my opinion, if you want to permit everybody to use multiple accounts, maintaining any player ranking has no sense at all. It's weird to me that I have to explain that.

A horrible example, for reasons that Oook already stated. Ladder games are not world-class tournament matches, nor is Wesnoth itself much like chess.

Other players attitude towards the ladder it's not something YOU decide about Doc chess has ranking, wesnoth has ranking, I never said these games are similar. Read with understanding please, I'm tired of explaining myself already.

Guess what: You don't decide what is wrong and right in relation to how other people want to use the ladder, nor do the admins when it really comes down to it.

There's a rule about having one account. We're not discussing academically what's good and bad here, we're discussing the rule breach here. I find it somewhat ironic that wesnoth admin supports rules breaking

Faello, I don't think you could be more wrong. Kindly chill on the self-righteous tirades

Seriously Doc, don't try to put me in your shoes now. You're the one that is affected by this situation, not me, why shouldn't I be chilled now, tell me . I'm playing approx 1 ladder game per 4 months, so plz, drop that paternalistic attitude. I'm just trying to point out, that you're far from being objective when discussing this matter.

And to those who say that someone should just play non-ladder games when multitasking, tired, drunk, etc., I will point out an undeniable reality. Like it or not, the state of things on the server is such that any attempt to play a non-ladder 1v1 will, about 90-95 percent of the time, leave you playing with a very weak player, who will often just disconnect when things start to go badly for them. Now, listen: I do not like this, but most of the good players nowadays want to use the time they have for 1v1s to play ranked games, and will pass on requests for non-ladder. The "just play non-ladder games" argument is not valid, if the player in question wants even the slightest challenge. Yes, there are a few good players out there who will accept a non-ladder request, but there's a general momentum to have the vast majority of top tier matches be ladder.

Is it so hard to just PM some good player you know and just ask him to play a 1vs1 with you?

I guess we should just all agree that rule breaking is ok as long as it is worth it

Seriously now, I totally support what Velensk and Kolbur wrote. Eot.

[peace]

Is it so hard to just PM some good player you know and just ask him to play a 1vs1 with you?

No it isn't. It's just so rare that one of the players you ask agrees to play a non-ladder game.

[Madlok]

If you reguarly are distracted, that is a practical an effective part of your rating and I don't see why you should be allowed some kind of excemption from your disadvantage.

So:

• Playing non-ladder games 1vs1 if you are ladder player.
  Deleting old account and creating new one.

These two things should be bad exploits in your definition too.

[Velensk]

Starting a new account is a slight problem (though probably pointless to make into an issue in most cases).

Playing non-ladder games isn't a problem because nobody else's points are at stake.

[tekelili]

Are we arguing about change rules or about if cheating is a good thing?

When I joined ladder I was aware my experience from 2v2 games needed some training on 1v1 before I could reach same skill level, so I thought would be fair for me create an account to train and a 2nd account to play when I was confident about my skill,,, Did I do such a thing?: "NO"

Why I didnt create a 2nd account?
Because before join ladder i read ladder rules and I found it was forbbiden, very simple.

A game where any player involved cheats becomes the most stupid thing and waste of time EVER, thats why I never cheated in my whole life, I just dont like waste my time in stupid things.

If most of players want allias being allowed, ok, just ask for change rules. But if most players dont want it be allowed or rule hasnt changed yet, argue in the way "I do what I want, I dont care rules, I have my right to do it" it just a behavior I can not understand.

It looks this behavior was very comon, so I understand people who did it thought was fair behavior. But please guys, be matured: If you dont like rules ask for being changed

If rules dont change after arguing about them: Accept rules and dont cheat or create a new ladder with your own rules

EDIT: I didnt want give names, but I understood wrong poeple could feel I am talking about them. So to be clear, attitude that pissed me a little was Quetzacoal one.

[nani]

Oh dear, this is getting way too far.
If I could, I would like to stop the neverending discussion ...

Finding a good ladder game is generally easier and even if you get a good no-ladder game it might end up with someone stopping to play "serious".
Anyways, I wish I wouldn't have revealed it. It seems like even the wesnoth world can only remain peaceful, if not all the truth is brought to daylight.
As the lawyer Faello stated (I bet you are close to be one ), the rules say it is not allowed. Furthermore Kolbur explained the reasons why.
It apparently doesn't matter how it is handled in Go or any other games, Oook, the ladder ought to be a serious place. (no irony in here, just how it seems to be)
I just want to say, I knew that all this could happen, still I revealed it, you all know I didn't need to.
And even if I might be missed, I would like to end this case on my own by stopping to play ladder (and in my case that means wesnoth) forever, instead of being pilloried in red.
Even if Rigor wants to build this example on me, the underworld of aliases won't change at all, it is just that someone has spoken about it.
I'm glad I only revealed the tip of the iceberg. This information is discussed in such extent ... the world would never understand the whole iceberg.
If I would be a member of a real underground organization instead of this one, I guess I would've been assassinated already.
My suggestion: Change the rule, or it will continue being breached, for whatever the reason ...

p.s.: I wish there would be someone else of the aliases talking freely about it, but I believe they want to continue playing wesnoth/ladder.

[Dauntless]

Hello everybody

I have just finished reading through the whole chat and trying to understand the complexity of the issue, together with my own opinion on the issue i had from earlier.
Ill try to summarise it as clearly as Im able to.

I will refrain from quoting the comments above to avoid pulling other names in and appearing to argue with them, but I will try to react on them and summarise my opinions up together with theirs.

(1) I think that the harmfulmess should be in question, not the fact, that it is against the rules.
- From what i remember the rules serve as a guideline and dictate a lot of things which are not often followed.( playing without timer is forbidden by the ladder rules, so is using mapppacks or no-mirror eras etc.)

(2) Harmfulness

There have been a lot of interesting points about bad / neutral / good impact on the ladder from using various account.

Good: It can promote more high-level games and/or more games altogether.

Neutral: Thats the whole heap of things where no impact is visible.

Bad:
This is the most discussed issue and the one that really matters.

I have also given this matter a lot of thought. Imho, a problem about having a second/third/etc account is mostly the start. You start fresh as 1500, though your skill is a lot higher, so you can slightly damage the players who play you until you get to approximately your rank. However, this is the same if you delete your first account beforehand or just join the ladder as a nonladder veteran.

After you get to your lvl, such as demo did for example, the elo system levels that out and no further damage is done as far as I can see.
Demo did indeed play consistently so you knew the odds of playing with him and the points won/lost were exactly corresponding to his skill. An interesting point mentioned above was that playing Demogorgon is far more secure than 8877 (the guy known to play 1 unit spams or silly things as well as top play wesnoth) or Gallifax, where he either creams you or ragequits.

The other thing was that it does slightly push you under your position. That is if you are 23rd, but rank 4 and 13 is owned by the same player, you are de facto 22nd. I cant judge how much the one step above would make the player happier, so I wont follow the point any further.

Of course any kind of reporting between your own accounts is resentful and should be punished, but that is not the case of the players mentioned above.

So trying to sum up my ideas:

Having multiple accounts slightly damages the others in your first 15-20 games (deleting 1st account doesnt change that) and slightly shifts the rank(meaning position, not ELO).
Otoh it can lead to more high level games if it "allows" to play ladder games even if you dont 100% feel like it. I dont think that it can lead to oneself getting a better rank than one deserves (i cant imagine how one would "protect" his prime account as was suggested several times). Whether it is moral or not, thats upon each persons cosciousness...



May the stars of Wesnoth shine upon your paths...

…and please keep your minds clear and open – Faello, nani, and Doc are 3 of the most amazing people around, it would be a big loss to lose any of them due to some internal conflict…

Cheers

Dauntless

Just for the record, I have two ladder accounts


P.S.: Rigor, i think that a link from the main ladder site here would be certainly better than a link to a weird poll with weird possible answers. And marking leo down without giving it a second thought seems very rash. Remember how you felt about the neki ban from Noy. Considering that leo voluntarily stepped up by confessing and being the only one punished among many, including former ladder admins and myself doesnt really seem fair...

[tekelili]

Oh dear, this is getting way too far.
If I could, I would like to stop the neverending discussion ...

I dont know why, it is preatty clear for me this issue was needed been discuused

I really hope you are not serious about dont play ladder anymore, nani. That would be a disaster imo. I hope Rigor understand that this issue needed be discussed, and no ladder player will get any profit for punish you or anyone with more than 1 ladder account (as far as all accept final decision about change or not change this rule)

My vote for change rule: I dont care

My vote for punish players with currently more than 1 ladder account: Totally against it. Very bad idea.

[Velensk]

I think there's a point you're missing Dauntless.

Lets say expert player A has two accounts one in the top 5 for his no-distractions play and one for slightly more causal play that's in the 10-20 range. Now expecting to be chatting with someone throughout most of his play he logs in on his casual account. His conversation finishes but he keeps playing.

Decent player B is also on and looking for a game, he sees a game open for someone who is above him but not incredibly so and joins it. He manages to pull off a trick, maybe hidden horseman 9 mp ambush or hidden wose, or maybe just gets really lucky and and wins.

He has in fact beaten one of the top players quite legitimately however he'll only get the points of playing someone in the next tier up, furthermore he risks far more points to play against someone closer to his skill than he does someone several ranks above him. Furthermore this lose does not harm A's better ranking on the ladder any despite the fact that he was beaten in a perfectly legitimate way by a player of supposedly lower skill.

Now, if it happens that both a players accounts are very close in rating then does that not prove that whatever impairment they use the second one for is not severe enough to justify the need for it's existence? On the flip side, in the above scenario the impairment does not stick around for the actual game against player B but I would argue that even if the impairment (whatever it is) is in effect, then it's still quite a legitimate reason for that player to be considered less skilled for the purpose of ladder than a player who is always focused when playing ladder.

You might argue that the system as it's set up discourages top level players from accepting games from people ranked much lower than them which I believe is true (one of the reasons I don't play ladder anymore is that I found that it amplified my annoyance at getting really bad luck and losing to less skilled opponents), but it is a part of the way the system is organized and it is organized that way for a reason.

[Dauntless]

I dont agree here Velensk.
If the second account has a fairly constant elo, it indicates fairly constant play at that level. Or oscilating but with the center there. A 1900ish player is 1900ish no matter if its a first or second account...
The player doesnt risk more - if the B account were stronger than rated, it would rise steadily in elo.