Decline in MP Quality

[swissman]

I also like the idea
It'll help communicate, without writing something, and also reduice waiting time before starting a game.

[Flametrooper]

I like it. (I'm probably Adventurer, Explorer, and a bit of Apprentice; in that it's more about playing and having fun than really winning to me (probably because I can rarely ever win )). This will sorta let people know who they are dealing with, and maybe if the symbol was displayed on the game name, then people could better know what game to join.

[FleshPeeler]

And maybe 'Learner' could be changed to 'Squire' or 'Apprentice' just for the sound of it.
it.

there could be other stats for people who are accustomed with the game but are still by far the experts and since u give urselve the stat even posing as an expert wont do anyone any good since it will show up in the gameplay anyway

Actually, I was going to make a similar suggestion earlier today. I saved it to notepad rather than posting because the jury's still in on whether or not I like it myself. Since it's been brought up, I will quote myself.

Another idea would be to add a flag for self-ranking. Ranks could range from "Rookie," "Novice," "Intermediate," "Professional," "Cutthroat," and "Unspecified." This way, people give themselves their rank, so it isn't something that people have to push and shove for. Honesty would be encouraged because those who are posing as "Cutthroat" (aka pr0 h@h@ n00b) would get their tails kicked by the REAL Pros.

The reason I didn't post this was because, in afterthought, I realized a hideous drawback to self-rankings. Those people who would rate themselves "Cutthroat" just to make themselves feel like pros are the same people who would rate themselves "Rookies" just so they can beat up the new guys. I can see plenty a game ending with "HAHAHA I TRICKED YOU LOLOLUSUX!!!1"

For the latest flag system, I don't see much of that happening with an "Apprentice" rank since it's the only one that actually denotes any particular level of skill. You might run into a few people who will try the above prank, but I don't think it will happen often, and those who do it will quickly grow tired of it. The Field Marshall should be reworded so that it does not imply any skill level, but rather emphasize that a serious player is looking for a serious game. Maybe the "I'm willing to teach new players" part should be removed and placed in another category?

[Flametrooper]

Yeah, like new category, Teacher: "I have some patience and I'm willing to instruct a newbie."

[Motrax]

I think there was an idea for giving the game itself a description it would be really usefull to have a description : and another matter If u dont like the rules made by host dont join leave join leave join leave join leave join leave it if u dont like 5 gold per village for petes sake its even visible on the main server window how much gold is made from a village
I can wait for players who like it that way I dont want to see however a player who perhaps is accusomed with low level village income to join the game then when its unfavorable for him to [censored] about how its bad to have such settings DO NOT start playing if u dont like the settings

and 4 people who have little time to play I say dont start playing a four player game if u dont have the time or a replacment

PS

sorry for the bithing post
i had to ease my anger

[Rhuvaen]

I created a new thread in the Ideas Forum to discuss a feature request for the status icons. There's more detail on the idea and it's possible workings here.

I'll probably create some more idea thread for other ideas that came up recently when I find the time.

[tsr]

Ok, after reading this thread I'll post a brave new idea:
<covers from flame>
There should be rankings on the MP server
</covers from flame>

What I've been thinking (after playing some 20 games or so, so yes I'm quite inexperienced!) is a system like the one of chess:

The amount of points won by winning a game is determined by the opponents relative ranking. In the following proposed system there is also a penalty for very highranked players winning against bad players.

This is how it works:

Every registered (yes, this requires registration) starts of with 100points.

I'm thinking of five types of opponents relative to your own ranking points:
note: these percentages are to give you a feel for what I mean
1. much higher: 200% and above of your points
2. higher: 130-200% of your points
3. equal: 80-130% of your points
4. lower: 40-80% of your points
5. much lower: 0-40% of your points

Now, here is a little chart:

Code: Select all

--------------| Opponent relative skill               | 
--------------|   1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5   |
player wins   |+20/-20|+10/-10| +5/-5 | +0/-0 |-10/+10|
player looses |+10/-10| -0/+0 | -5/+5 |-10/+10|-20/+20|
--------------|
--------------|first number is players points, second opponents

So, to sum it up:
- beating a equally or better player gets you points, as does loosing against a much worse player
- loosing against a equal or worse player looses points, as does loosing against a much better player

Notice how the amount of total ranking points is dependant on the number of registered players, one losses points, one gains, no free points floating around!

Of course this only works in 1v1, but if you like the idea I'm sure that we can figure out how to tweak it for real MP

You could still inflate your numbers creating fake accounts, but only to a certain limit as after a while it doesn't matter how much you beat your 'opponent' you'll still loose points.

The only drawback I see is that it might become harder for learners to get games against experts, but I doubt that the current experts would really care about their ranking points.

Oh, almost forgot, why did I propose this?

Because today I've been playing all day and I can say that playing equaly good players is far more fun than playing much better/much worse.

So I don't learn as much as I would playing (and concentrating really hard) much better players, but I need to have fun too!

Now, backstab away!

/tsr

[Yogibear]

Guess what: We got that already, it's called the wesnoth ladder. Actually, i lost touch to it so i can't tell if it still exists. It was meant to be a tool for players that appreciate competition.

You should find a thread about it if you search here on the forum.

But: Obviously it didn't affect the quality of players in any way . One reason might be that there are very strict rules and immature people won't have any fun taking part in that, so they just stay away from it.

Here is another proposal: If you want to find good (or not so good) players, ask for them. Go to the server or the mp-dev channel on irc (#wesnoth-mp) and ask people like Soliton or Dragonking for good opponents (or ask if they have time to teach you a lesson ).

Another note: We used to have an mp dev on the server quite regularly. They cared for keeping things in order and they banned people if they severly misbehaved. Admittedly they are not so regularly there any more but if you experience really bad behaviour just come to the #wesnoth-dev channel and ask someone to take action on that.

[Noy]

Ok, after reading this thread I'll post a brave new idea:
<covers from flame>
There should be rankings on the MP server
</covers from flame>

TSR please read a thread before posting. We don't support a ranking system... for a variety of reasons, its stated twice in here.

As for all the other "ideas" on giving status, assigning status, flags ect. Ones assigned by other users (ala AIM) has already been discounted. As someone noted earlier, the problems associated with it caused AIM to remove the feature in the first place.

As for Rheuvan's idea, its nice, but I question whether such a complex system is at all necessary. I think for now the most we need is a system that shows only a few options (somewhat like MSN). I think stuff that might be useful are options like AFK (one that could be linked to inactivity), looking for a game (1v1, 2v2) ect. But giving people user options to self label themselves or others according to their skill is in my mind dangerous and open to abuse.

I'm fast thinking this thread needs to be locked. I'm seeing old ideas get rehashed, ones we've already addressed earlier in the thread.

[Noy]

Here is another proposal: If you want to find good (or not so good) players, ask for them. Go to the server or the mp-dev channel on irc (#wesnoth-mp) and ask people like Soliton or Dragonking for good opponents (or ask if they have time to teach you a lesson ).

Another note: We used to have an mp dev on the server quite regularly. They cared for keeping things in order and they banned people if they severly misbehaved. Admittedly they are not so regularly there any more but if you experience really bad behaviour just come to the #wesnoth-dev channel and ask someone to take action on that.

Actually, not to diminish Soliton and DK, but I was the one who has been most open to teaching new players if they are willing to listen and learn (when I've had the time to). At the same time, I've probably also got the reputation of being one of the most harsh people to play with... especially when someone isn't willing to listen. I should probably work on that.

As yogi noted. I'm usually on during the evenings in North America, and I'm usually reachable via IRC all the other times. Soliton and DK haven't been on as much lately (due to school and summer committments) but if there is a problem he or I are almost always reachable via IRC and are fully willing and able to deal with problems on the server.

[Rhuvaen]

I'll post a brave new idea:

The idea may be brave, but new it is not. *dump into bin*

As for Rhuvaen's idea, its nice, but I question whether such a complex system is at all necessary. I think for now the most we need is a system that shows only a few options (somewhat like MSN). I think stuff that might be useful are options like AFK (one that could be linked to inactivity), looking for a game (1v1, 2v2) ect. But giving people user options to self label themselves or others according to their skill is in my mind dangerous and open to abuse.

The latter has been discussed to death and culled... The current idea only allows for users voluntarily flagging themselves as learners. I can't see how that could be abused.

FYI, here's the current list of proposed status possibilities:

A) Playing (no icon) - currently playing and not available

B) Won't Join (white icons)
B1 - Lurker: just watching
B2 - Passive: afk

C) Ready to Play (red or green or different colours)
C1 - simple, no frills game with standard competitive settings
C2 - slower or bigger strategic games
C3 - fun and less serious game play
C4 - social game, competitive game play less important than atmosphere
C5 - just one more quick game with fast-moving players
C6 - novice: learning the ropes

I don't see a problem with people giving an indication of personal preferences and/or circumstances. Is it really necessary? No. Would the MP server benefit from it? Yes. Enough to warrant coding it up? I don't know, but I'd like to discuss.

Surely, a thread that has come to page 7 without going OT can't be just about a non-issue.

[tsr]

TSR please read a thread before posting. We don't support a ranking system... for a variety of reasons, its stated twice in here.

After rereading the thread again I'd say that we support a ranking system, the problem here seems to be to define who we are. I see roughly three kinds of players here:

1. Noys - very good, experienced players who consider themselves a part of wesnoth (overrepresented on the forums)
2. Tsrs - learning players that are polite and one day hope to become Noys.
3. pwning n00bs - a mysterious player that tries to destroy the game and everything associated with it by using foul language, disconnects and other unspecified strategies

I guess that there isn't much to do about this, you (and a bunch of others) see this as your community - with all right, you created this game. Me and others try to make our way in (it's probably easier for me than for a lot of people as I'm used to OS communities, can behave and have a lot of time)

I do agree with JW's PM that you quoted earlier

Making the game better for the good players will make sure the game continues to grow at what I call the "back end", adding more and more nuances. The "front end", where people come into the game, should be friendly, but frontloading the game is never something that should be done as it not only makes the game less enjoyable later but it also attracts people that are only in it for it's "newbie" appeal. Also, adding to the back end is like holding a carrot for new players to get better, which is a good thing as well.

I guess I just wish that we (now I'm refering to all of us that want to play and contribute to the game) could come up with a better way for new players to get in there (allthough I suspect that some of the regulars really would like to keep the community small, just a hunch, no fingers pointed) with the very good and experienced players.

As for this:

I'll post a brave new idea:

The idea may be brave, but new it is not. *dump into bin*

Ok, sorry should have made a deeper search on the forums first. I think that in this thread the only thing I found was things like:

I have to agree with Noy.

Any System that ranks players is usually a bad idea and leads to a decrease in the MP community...

Allthough some (mostly Noy) have had arguments with that too like:

Rating system in any form = bad. Why? Because immature users (the ones you want to curtail) will abuse it. Does anyone here remember when AIM had a warning system? There were buggers running amuk who would just hit the warn button continuously just to cripple someone's ability to chat. For giggles. How do we monitor who has the ability to rate others? Anyone can give any rating for any reason, and there isn't much anyone can do to stop them. Sure, you could rate them back. But then you get the same sort of people who run through music sites giving everything a rating of one out of five because they think they're clever. [/rant]

Bad idea.

I do find this post interresting and confusing (my bold):

Neither am I saying its a perfect system. However this isn't like other aspects of the game. It has to be fool proof, otherwise its going to be abused, moreso than any other aspect of the game's code. As Dubh pointed out, its something that can be easily abused. I can easily imagine a situation where some young hot head, after losing badly goes and makes 10 accounts and ruins someone else's reputation. Without such a system people don't really care.

[...]

No, I'm saying your opinion is wrong, and I'm pretty sure most of the long time players would agree with my point. The problem with the community, or newbs is overblown. This isn't some sort of denial with the state of affairs. I'm on every day, and I talk to players constantly. I won't deny that new players aren't a irritant from time to time, but its never that bad.

Moreover it is unclear whether your proposed system would do anything to change things. In most cases the problems you outline are not serial offenders, its a new player coming into the game... who usually leaves quite soon. How a flagging system would help this problem is doesn't make sense to me, since these people will likely leave pretty quickly once they get bored. I really don't think they care very much about a negative rating.... and you can't create a system under your proposal that will do anything. The only thing that is effective is when an admin comes in there and bans them. If its a serious problem, then you can come to the IRC channels and someone could deal with it.

The system we have today I think works overall. As Sapient noted, after awhile you get to know who are the good players, and you play with them constantly. It pushes people to keep the same names, and work by the honour system. And for the "regulars" it works brilliantly. What you are proposing really already exists today. There are players I know not to play with, and most of the others. Actually I must say that I really enjoy the community, and time I've spent to getting to know people.

I think this is clearly illustrated by the following quote. This is a pm sent to me by JW. I'm sorry to do this to him, but I think its quite good.

see above in this post, same quote

In this post, JW sums up exactly how the game's philosophy works. We are happy with it, and we don't see a need to change the game in the ways you outline, because we already do it. I don't think a installed system that makes people pat each other on the back really is worth it, because it would just be superfluous to what we have already. Why would we want to put so much effort into something that would have such limited returns, is a major reason why it is unlikely you will ever see such a system installed.

I think that the Noys don't understand the problem for the Tsrs (probably you do, I'm just i bit frustrated here). I'd say that while the game is developed for the really good players (a choice I agree with) there should be some 'front loading' to attract new players that can become really good.

(All systems that try to differentiate players skills are only good/relevant for players that are in the middle, since experts don't care - they allready know who's who and n00bs will leave anyway )

I do like the idea of selflabeling your status when logging in, allthough I think that lazyness will make it useless.

Ok, enough if enough I wont continue this discussion.

To sum it up I think that the real problem here is the MP UI (didn't expect that, did you!)

Watching it now I think that there are improvements to be made, brainstorming:
- when the player list in the lobby is updated filter on status (free, observing, playing) and name (in alphabetical order)
- when joining a game, add a button to start the game for all players so that you can check the game before it starts
- have a postgame chat
- have different pregame 'rooms' much like the selflabeling on what kind of game you want to play.
[edit]
- A way to take sneak peak at the lobby, to see who's available (just a player list would suffice) when you're observing a game. (it's boring the re-observe the beginning of a battle just because you want to look if there are any players available for play)
[/edit]

Now it ends, I promise!

/tsr

[jb]

Now these are just my observations, doesn't mean I'm right....

Any thoughts on a player "status" icon or color-coding system is being addressed in another thread and I'll let that conversation continue there.

As for the "other" MP issues that are concerning people...including ranking systems and other labels...I offer a simple philosophy that hopefully will let everyone rest easy at night. Wesonth is a social community, not a competitive one.

People come to enjoy the company of their friends by playing wesnoth together. They don't come to beat the snot out of the competition. They don't come to say "I'm the best Wesnoth player that ever lived". I don't think any of the regulars are really looking to be ranked.

That doesn't mean people don't want good, competitive games....with good players of a similar skill level. They do, and so do I. It just means playing with friends has more value than beating players or competiting to be the best.

And as with any social circle, new people shouldn't just expect to be accepted instantly. Random noobs come and go so ofter that many times its not even worth getting to know them. As soon as you recognize their name they're gone (playing the newest/hottest game). So it's only understandable that it takes some time to meet friends in wesoth MP just as it takes time to make friends in real life.

If you want to meet people just be patient. Observe some games. Get to know people. Don't be rude. Don't be annoying. Don't be dumb. Don't quit games. And learn how to play a good game of wesnoth, so people will want to include you.

Then before you know it you'll be explaining how it works to frustrated new people.

[Yogibear]

jb: excellent post, i am glad this thread has not been locked . I fullheartedly agree.

- when the player list in the lobby is updated filter on status (free, observing, playing) and name (in alphabetical order)

I remember a thread somewhere that had some proposals regarding the player list (like colouring and things). Or are you still playing 1.0? Then there will be some nice surprises to you .

- when joining a game, add a button to start the game for all players so that you can check the game before it starts

Well, it's not exactly that but you can do a similar thing: Join as observer first and get an impression what kind of players you are dealing with. Using the current development release, you don't have to leave and rejoin the game to participate: The host simply can put you in (maybe it already was like that in 1.0, i am not sure).

I have to admit there is a nasty bug atm if you put in observers into slots from the game lobby. I am 80% done to fix it, maybe we should wait until then .

- have a postgame chat

Good idea, you should consider to add a feature request for that if it has not been done yet.

- have different pregame 'rooms' much like the selflabeling on what kind of game you want to play.

I am not sure if that makes sense atm, cause with the current number of players i fear that most rooms will be quite empty most of the time. But maybe later.

[edit]
- A way to take sneak peak at the lobby, to see who's available (just a player list would suffice) when you're observing a game. (it's boring the re-observe the beginning of a battle just because you want to look if there are any players available for play)
[/edit]
/tsr

I agree. Now that quick replay works all the time (only svn, probably soon in the next release) it is not that much boring anymore but still...

[Truper]

I suggest that jb's post above be snipped and made a sticky somewhere.

I have watched what happens when games implement a ranking system. What it amounts to is contentiousness, acrimony, and a lot less fun for everyone. Remove the ranking system, and suddenly people relax, and enjoy themselves. And the quality of play suffers not at all.