Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Refusal option before battle?


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 IsmailUfukBuyukozkaya

IsmailUfukBuyukozkaya

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Captain

Posted 11 December 2015 - 04:55 AM

What you think about it?

-

IF there is a refusal button before the battle.

 

You meet randomly rival player at the start of the game. But you know your rival style isnt better for you. And you dont want to make war against him.

It can be good option using tihs refusal button and leave without battle. (maybe some losing points as little amount.)


  • Lonello likes this

http://www.cimbom.gs The ultimate social network 

www.twitter.com/UfukBuyukozkaya


#2 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,020 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 11 December 2015 - 10:22 AM

I like this more because you can refuse to play against those showing bad sportmanship, not because your rival's style doesn't suit you.

 

You're right though... there must be some sort of penalty for it. Otherwise people can refuse all day long and matching up will take lots more time.


  • tobermoryx, Mr. Smith and IsmailUfukBuyukozkaya like this
Lo

#3 Chewtoy

Chewtoy

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 11 December 2015 - 06:47 PM

What about a refusal option for the new app? 


  • Lonello and Mr. Smith like this

Terror made me cruel. 


#4 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 11 December 2015 - 11:43 PM

The Decline to Play button and a fix of the double chase rule would go a long way to attracting people to the new app.

They can make changes. Notice how the new single player app they came out with earlier this year has different movement rules than the new Multiplayer app. The single player is screwy because it gives the evader a fourth move in a Two Squares situation where he should be trapped, but in other ways it's closer to the ISF rules. HmmNess doesn't appear to be in effect, for example, but RBP is. Check out what I mean with the new single player app, Chewtoy.

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#5 Jade K

Jade K

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 12 December 2015 - 02:53 AM

and u can be pretty sure waterfall riverfall lakefall drainfall cheat their way to the top of the ranking
  • Fairway and Moriarty like this

#6 Fairway

Fairway

    General

  • Junior Tournament Management
  • 2,267 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 12 December 2015 - 12:39 PM

and u can be pretty sure waterfall riverfall lakefall drainfall cheat their way to the top of the ranking

They have before, so they'll do it again. These cheaters are so annoying.


I'm always a winner- win or lose the game. I take my mistakes and learn from them!

#7 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 13 December 2015 - 12:32 AM

and u can be pretty sure waterfall riverfall lakefall drainfall cheat their way to the top of the ranking


With a Decline to Play button there could be more shenanigans going on, I admit. But then the word would get out to all good players to avoid the bad ones and eventually it would become obvious, I think, that a bad player's only opponents were his own accounts. Would it be any worse than the current situation for high ranked players?

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#8 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Captain

  • Moderators
  • 865 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 13 December 2015 - 01:16 AM

I think a decline button should not be available on every game

 

But people who are proved to have misbehaved : draw refusal/abusive chat , maybe disconnectors , should have a decline button appear for any opponent they are matched with.

 

If you saw this button you could maybe hover over it to find why this person had one .Then you could decide whether to play them , and if you left the game you would not lose any points.

 

I think this would be better than banning people as the banned just start another account a few seconds later and then annoy a whole new group of players as they climb back to their normal level . If there was a decline option then they would really struggle to get games and they might be grateful to anyone who would play them and less likely to reoffend .

 

After 1 month good behaviour maybe the button could be removed.


  • Lonello and Napoleon 1er like this

#9 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 13 December 2015 - 04:21 AM

As I have stated in past posts, decline to play button can lead towards abuse in another form:  some players will refuse to play anyone they know can beat them and decide to build up a fake rating and win %.  We saw this on the old site this one took over we had a couple players who refused to play anyone but weak players and newbies to build up their 95%+ win total.  I would just be weary that to have this option would just allow players like Waterfall or whoever just play who they want and get their ratings that way. 


  • Luckypapa likes this

#10 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 13 December 2015 - 04:47 AM

tobermoryx, you may be on to something with the public shaming aspect of your plan. Let me shoot you some initial ideas on the subject. Please tell me what you think at the end.

Tackling the negative first, the problem with your plan is that it requires too much manual work by either mods or admins to apply and, in particular, to remove these "buttons" you describe at a specified time or performance level of the player involved. Without automation, this would be a headache.

But here's where I think we win. We keep the Decline to Play button of my earlier notion and combine that with the part of your idea about public shaming, and then we do something akin to what eBay does on shipper satisfaction ratings. We put up a statistic on everyone for "Declined Percentage". Someone gets a 2% decline rating, they're a decent person/player. Someone gets a 63% decline rating, then not so much. There wouldn't be any statistics kept as to why a Decline occurred, only that it did. We would keep it simple.

To prevent hoards from overly smashing any one person's decline rate, we'd place a limit of 2 opponent declines per day for every account. This way you also wouldn't be able to decline ten opponents in a row because you felt lousy. You would have to spend your declines wisely.

Another idea I'm toying around with is one to protect individual accounts even further. Besides the limit (2) on opponent accounts that anyone could decline, we could place a limit on the number of times in one day that any one account could get declined. This would be a higher number, say 6, and if a really bad player received those 6 declines in one day, he'd receive a guaranteed match the very next time he had the computer search for an opponent for him. This way the bad players would be punished by having to wait through as many as 6 declines, but they would also have games for playing after their daily penance.

On top of all this there's rating ranges that I would like to see set by every player. If you only wanted opponent searches between 100 and 200 ELO, you could choose that, for example. This would prevent a lot of low opponent angst for high rated players and others as well.

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#11 Jade K

Jade K

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 13 December 2015 - 04:47 AM

if u want a refusal 'button', then do away with the elo ranking

besides its useless now anyway, since it is a bunch of kiddos playing on the site now(and in the future)

 

the so called 'lp' checks are ..really obsolete. do u want me to show u how to create 20 userids from 20 different terminals in my internet café?

 

Proper, paid subscription is the only way to go for a clean ranking.


  • sevenseas likes this

#12 Jade K

Jade K

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 13 December 2015 - 04:49 AM

u guys are taking it far too ideal far too perfect in such a perfect world of moral values with public advertisements/shaming/broadcasting/campaigns.

if I am determined to screw this game site up, nothing can stop me as a saboteur



#13 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 13 December 2015 - 04:59 AM

Jade K, I think it was mentioned recently to have a complete and regular ratings reset, say every 6 months to a year or so. This would also tend to stop accounts from perpetrating as the ELO incentive would be less.

But if you want to go the pay route, what kind of money are you thinking? I have heard some decry it...they'll never pay to play...to others who claim it's the only way to go and they'd be happy to pay $100 a year for it.

I personally would pay money but don't know what an accurate poll would say about everyone on the site. Of course, it depends largely on how much.

So what are you thinking as an amount?

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#14 Jade K

Jade K

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 13 December 2015 - 05:47 AM

GLS,

 

I would say keep the free ranking/system as it is now for free-registration/casual players who just want a good time. someone might just enjoy it for the challenge, facing all these cheats, I don't know, but even for me I think its really unnecessary timewasting for me to tweak my setups(just to fight cheaters) if I play 10 games in a row, because this sort of things don't happen in real life tourneys.

 

 

On the other spectrum, set up a membership for real stratego competitions, if u want to develop this further. For the number of good players who came over to this site, these people want real fights. The amount is not important, u see - for as long as there is the procedure of payment, u will eliminate a huge chunk of these freetime hoarders of multiple users who sign up using email addresses like one in a minute. How much was the amount to download the app on ipad? USD5? Thats a good amount to start with. Each new email address u want to register as another new player, ok another USD5. By default this will make all the ipad users good on the 'membership' ranking, and u only need to deal with the pc/web-version registered players by giving them the same USD5-payment option.

if u are talking any amount more, USD100, etc, isn't it more geared towards the development of stratego as a future? All's well for me, I have been around for some time. however, lets need not take things to such an extent yet, if the implementation of a standard USD5 to build a clean ranking can happen, it is already going to be a massive achievement.



#15 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 13 December 2015 - 07:33 AM

Anything would be better than nothing. Like you say there's already a $5 fee for the app, either Android or Apple. Two tiers may be good, too. A few people have mentioned the same thing. I suppose it's an idea.

But I don't think a small one time fee will have much staying power in holding new account creations down. It's not that big a deal to pay $5 once. Now if there were a monthly $5, or even $2, that would better accomplish what you seek, I think: a financial deterrent.

Or, everyone could pay a large up front fee. $50 per year.
  • sevenseas likes this

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#16 Losermaker

Losermaker

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 420 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 13 December 2015 - 09:30 PM

You cant have unlimited refusal's (due to people working the system), it has to be a limited amount of maybe 2 a week and if you exceed this amount, each time you refuse after you have used your 2 gives you -5 or something.


Edited by Losermaker, 13 December 2015 - 09:30 PM.


#17 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Captain

  • Moderators
  • 865 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 14 December 2015 - 02:13 AM

tobermoryx, you may be on to something with the public shaming aspect of your plan. Let me shoot you some initial ideas on the subject. Please tell me what you think at the end.

Tackling the negative first, the problem with your plan is that it requires too much manual work by either mods or admins to apply and, in particular, to remove these "buttons" you describe at a specified time or performance level of the player involved. Without automation, this would be a headache.

Gary , i was just proposing this as an 'ideal world' solution . I do not remotely expect it to be implemented , not when something as comparatively simple as an auto draw does not get implemented in years of people asking for it.

 

As i understand your proposals it seems you could - without losing points - decline a game for any reason at all : you think the player is not good enough to play you , or they are too good , or you just don't like their username.

 

The main problem i have with this is .....

 

I have recorded my results of like the last 500+ ranked games and , without looking it up , there have been about 10 occasions when , just after the opponent info comes up , i get a message saying 'you are the winner' . Now it is possible the opponent just got a glitch like the shockwave flash one but in the majority of these instances i find the player i was matched with was rated 100 something . I only get matched with players that low about 7% of the time but 70% of the time i am given the game at the start it is against these players.

 

Statistically it is not credible that these players suffer so much more from glitches so the logical conclusion is , upon seeing they are matched with someone 500 points higher , they decide they have no chance and just quit .No problem for them or me: they lose 1 ELO point and i get another game 2-3 minutes later.

 

For the top players though this would be a big problem .I have seen Hielco and Sohal say they may be waiting 20 minutes as it is when they request a ranked game , now while they of course would not be matched with players rated 100 they would , eventually , get matched with players around 650-725* . A great many players in that range are multi account players who care primarily about their W/L stats or reaching a certain ELO target in a certain number of games .They do not want to play against players better than them , they are bad losers who like running up winning streaks vs low players and starting over as soon as they get regular matches vs people who can beat them.

 

So if they can get out of a game they'd likely lose without penalty they will do this . The top players could then find they might typically wait 40 minutes+ to play and they would not bother .Having the best players in the world here is one of the strongest features of this site.

 

*Ideally of course they would get matched with players 800+ but the reality is ,whatever the leaderboards say , there are maybe only about 50 such players , only 1 or 2 of which are likely to be online at any one time.



#18 Caesar101

Caesar101

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Miner

Posted 14 December 2015 - 02:26 AM

if u want a refusal 'button', then do away with the elo ranking

besides its useless now anyway, since it is a bunch of kiddos playing on the site now(and in the future)

 

the so called 'lp' checks are ..really obsolete. do u want me to show u how to create 20 userids from 20 different terminals in my internet café?

 

Proper, paid subscription is the only way to go for a clean ranking.

have a problem with kids playing?

 

why? are they better than you?



#19 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 14 December 2015 - 03:18 AM

For the top players though this would be a big problem .I have seen Hielco and Sohal say they may be waiting 20 minutes as it is when they request a ranked game , now while they of course would not be matched with players rated 100 they would , eventually , get matched with players around 650-725* . A great many players in that range are multi account players who care primarily about their W/L stats or reaching a certain ELO target in a certain number of games .They do not want to play against players better than them , they are bad losers who like running up winning streaks vs low players and starting over as soon as they get regular matches vs people who can beat them.

So if they can get out of a game they'd likely lose without penalty they will do this . The top players could then find they might typically wait 40 minutes+ to play and they would not bother .Having the best players in the world here is one of the strongest features of this site.

*Ideally of course they would get matched with players 800+ but the reality is ,whatever the leaderboards say , there are maybe only about 50 such players , only 1 or 2 of which are likely to be online at any one time.



tobermoryx, how about this idea then?

Take this immediate issue you bring up...low ranked players quitting on high ranked players to avoid a long game and likely loss. Let's say we give a Decline option for 2 a day, as I've said. But maybe we make this Decline option good only for lower ranked players, or maybe lower ranked players plus we limit the upward use of the Decline option to those 50 points higher.

This would help with some of the second account shameless scouting of higher accounts. The logic would also be that lower players all have something to learn and should play all those who are higher ranked (or 50 points higher).

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#20 astros

astros

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 14 December 2015 - 03:49 AM

Just play the game.

 

Yes, some scout setups; switch your setup every game and make a new one every 10 games or so.

 

Play who you get, but if you want to address this allow players to established a floor and a ceiling. You play no one below your floor and no one above your ceiling. Then remove the wait times and match people who fall into each other's ranges.


3 - 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users