36 replies to this topic

[HmmNess]

I have noticed this to be a problem and some of the members of this community have opinions on this matter as well. As of now, you are forced to play a random person every time you wish to play a ranked multi-player match. This can be problematic at times for a few different reasons:

1.) You might have a high rank and encounter a low ranked player. You are now forced to play this low ranked player. If you choose not to, you will end up losing the match which will affect your rank. If your rank is 600 and a 100 ranked player loses against you, you will only gain +1 point to your current rank. Yet, if you lose against this low 100 rank player, you will end up losing around -22 points from your current rank. In this example, it is useless to play any low ranked player, since you have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

2.) Players that are good at Stratego might want to knock the high ranked players off of the charts. These players are able to do so by creating a decoy account which they will use to continuously forfeit matches to low ranked players. This will keep their rank at 100. As stated above in section 1, whenever a high ranked player comes across this low ranked decoy account, the high ranked player has everything to lose and nothing to gain. This is an easy way for players to destroy a high ranked player’s rating since the high ranked player has no idea how good the anonymous player is. If players were able to choose to accept or decline a match, this type of behavior would be controlled by the users. This would also keep players honest since they would only be able to play high ranked players if they have proven themselves first.

3.) Cheaters are another reason why declining a challenge should be acceptable. You enter a match with someone who is a known cheater. As of now, you are forced to play this player otherwise you will forfeit the match and lose points from your rating. If you accept to play this player, you are taking the chance that this player will cheat again. Again, the solution is simple, allow players to accept or decline a ranked match.

These are just a few examples that I personally have come across. Fixing this problem shouldn’t be too complicated at all. All we need added to the “Match Lobby” is an “Accept” and a “Decline” button before the match starts. Beyond that, we could expand on this idea by allowing players to edit their “Match Options” before searching for a match. These options will allow you to choose: which rankings you wish to play, which type of game you wish to play (Example: Sci-fi version or Original version) and which type of extra units you wish to play with (Example: playing with the Infiltrator piece or not). For un-rated matches, you should be able to add special rules that spice up the game for fun (Example: The Spy is able to kill any piece if the Spy attacks first.) Midnightguy and a few other players have mentioned that adding a feature that allows you to challenge your friends to a ranked match would also be acceptable.

HmmNess

[varishnakov]

Yes

[Enigma]

In general, I like the concept of being randomly assigned to an opponent, with a few modifications. First, players should have the option to block specific individuals (ie. cheaters) as they see fit (at least until the software is updated to prevent cheating and stalling). Second, players should be able to challenge specific players if they wish. Third, I think an improvement to the random assignment system would take account of a player's recent results. For example, suppose I play an opponent ranked lower than me and I win. For my next game, the system should try to pair me with someone with a higher rank. If I play my next game and lose, the system should try to pair me with someone with a lower rank. For players with the highest rank, the system should try to pair them with the next highest ranked player available. This method should increase the overall level of competition.

[HmmNess]

Third, I think an improvement to the random assignment system would take account of a player's recent results. For example, suppose I play an opponent ranked lower than me and I win. For my next game, the system should try to pair me with someone with a higher rank. If I play my next game and lose, the system should try to pair me with someone with a lower rank. For players with the highest rank, the system should try to pair them with the next highest ranked player available. This method should increase the overall level of competition.

Enigma,

Not a bad idea, as long as you can still accept or decline a challenge and not be forced to play someone you do not wish to play.

HmmNess

[trickz]

Vote yes

[Midnightguy]

I vote yes. I would enjoy the ability to challenge people to a ranked game and the player would have the ability to refuse the match.

I also agree with Enigma, the random player button should still be in play and the site should make an effort to place you in games with people near or at your rank. I also agree if you block someone, that person shouldn't be matched up against you.

My only concern when you can decline matches all the time, some players will go out and build a fake rating. How do you get a fake rating? Ask Glowski21 on a former site. He would only accept challenges from new or weak players and he had a 95% win record. He refused my challenges all the time but, funny I one day made a new name and he rushed to challenge me right way! Needless to say I ended his 30 game win streak and I didn't play another game on that name for a couple weeks until I signed on again and he challenged me again! Again I beat him easily. In other words:

"To be the best you gotta play the best"

[trickz]

Yeah, I remembered that name as well. He never wanted to play me as well.
I've asked it a zillion times and he refused them all.

[GOD OF WAR]

Ich würde gerne in der Lage sein, um die Leute, die ich spielen möchten

[SpacemanSpiff]

The random matching on this site is by design, is unique to this site, and I think is a favorable differentiator.

If you go to the site FAQ under the 'About Stratego' section, it states:
"What about the Multiplayer game? »


If you choose to play the Multiplayer mode the system will choose an opponent who matches your standing in the ranking. When the system cannot find a suitable opponent you will be given the option to play in Single Player mode."



This site feature prevents users from 'gaming' the ranking system by playing certain players that they know very well or have memorized opponent's tactic or setups. I play here in part due to this feature. If you are worried about getting matched to site scoundrels such as SS or JustinHayward, you should be patient with site developers as they plan to develop a site discipline model that should deal with the trouble makers.

Challenges aren't ranked for the same reason stated above - gaming the system. There should be no changes to the site ranking model. Once the site starts to implement seeded (ranked) tournaments, we will have the opportunity to play ranked games against top ranked players in a format where you will know who you will be playing in advance in the bracket. This should satisfy some of the need for ranked challenges. Tournaments are always a lot of fun.

Spiff

[bboys2012]

vote yes

[§ilence321]

i vote yes also

[KingTubby]

I vote no because I don't agree completely with Hmmness' arguments. The whole idea of the ranking system is that if you want to reach the top, you should be able to face any player. Of course if you play a low ranking player you risk to loose a lot of points, but then if a low ranking player beats you, you deserve to drop in ranking. Furthermore, if they are really no good, the game should be over quickly and it boosts your percentage. So why not?

Of course there is still the issue of the unsporty players. I don't have a solution for that one.

[Lord_AvS]

I also vote no because the same arguments of KingTubby.

[HmmNess]

Look, a Grand Master in chess with a rating of 2700 is NOT going to play an average player with a rating of 1300.  The Grand Master has so much to lose it is ridiculous.  Even if the Grand Master wins the match, they won't gain much.  The Chess community understands this and that is why they allow players to accept or decline matches.

 

If the ranking system in Stratego is like the Chess ranking system… shouldn’t we incorporate their set of rules that go along with the ranking system as well?

 

HmmNess

 

 

[varishnakov]

The difference is a grand master would win agaisnt a 1300 player 100 times out of 100. I don't think that could possibly happen with a silver player vs an average player. The ability difference is not as great in stratego.

However, with that said, I like playing players of equal or greater strength and to me it is just a waste of time to play a bronze spy.

[SpacemanSpiff]

Disagree with accept/decline button and any concept that allows you to choose your opponent for a ranked game - Smart matching only.

[GaryLShelton]

please delete this post.

[GaryLShelton]

please delete this post

[GaryLShelton]

1. I vote NO to FREE AND UNRESTRICTED ability to decline matches.
2. I vote YES to a COMPROMISE between COMPUTER MATCHING and a LIMITED DECLINE BUTTON.

 

While I see the rank match problem HmmNess started the thread about, and I do have direct experience with the problems he mentions (as a Bronze Lieutenant I got a match with Spiff himself, and later as a Captain got one with Master Yoda), there has to be an ability to play higher ranked players for any of us to learn and improve.  But let's be sensible and place a limit in the computer so that matches beyond a certain separation of skill levels never happens like my two above.  Make a rule that no match happens without the higher ranking person being able to at least advance (arbitrary number follows) 3 points by winning.  This seems to me a very conservative effort to make the computer match a bit smarter.

 

Simultaneously, why can't we allow a DECLINE button, but limit its use to 2-3 times per day.  After 3, it would be mandatory to stand and fight (ie., play the game).  Maybe we could even make the said DECLINE quantity higher for Silvers, who have earned certain privileges I hope, while making the number smaller (0-1) for Bronze Spys, who need to play everybody they can?    

 

While on the one hand we probably can't have a perfectly "smart" matching in the computer immediately, my suggestion in paragraph #1 moves a step closer.  On the other hand, we also can't have a FREE and UNRESTRICTED use of a DECLINE button.  I'm sorry to state the obvious here, but you know, if every higher ranked player declines all matches with lower opponents, then no one would be playing.  Who would Spiff play?

 

So because I generally am a purist and like simplicity in all things, the closer to filter-free an option for computer matching is, the more it appeals to me.  The minimum 3 points rule for matching satisfies the simplicity requirement for me.  To Spiff and Enigma, do you like this?  

 

For HmmNess and others, what would you think of having a limited-use DECLINE button as described?   

 

Added to our presently wonderful and random system, would the proposed combination still allow enough individual control, but also still maintain a level of un-predictableness to the computer matching to keep the play levels entertainingly mixed up?

 

How does this sound?

[Lady Kathryn]

3.) Cheaters are another reason why declining a challenge should be
acceptable. You enter a match with someone who is a known cheater. As of
now, you are forced to play this player otherwise you will forfeit the
match and lose points from your rating. If you accept to play this
player, you are taking the chance that this player will cheat again.
Again, the solution is simple, allow players to accept or decline a
ranked match.

 

Thats the only reason I vote YES