Jump to content


Photo

Adjust ELO tiers up 1 level so Gold & Platinum are potentially achievable


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#21 Hielco

Hielco

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 November 2013 - 11:57 PM

I play table tennis at my local club and if I am gone for a period of 3-4 mos., my name somehow disappears from the club rankings.  But then, when I return to play I find my old ranking still intact, and it then reappears as previously.  

 

How would this sound here?  It would make the leaders real and true leaders and not absentee position holders, and the ranking boards would certainly be cleaned up.    If someone's rank wasn't forgotten by the computer, what would be unfair about just dropping their name from the leader boards until they played again?  Then they return with their old ELO ranking number.

 

 

 

 

thats how it should be


  • v.navigator and Gaius Marius like this

#22 Manning2Cruz

Manning2Cruz

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 19 November 2013 - 02:38 AM

look the point is i heard it from someone here an I can't leak it.. I'm just posting this so people like me who have asked countless times for program improvements to stop wasting their breath and hope.

 

all we have is the justice committee and i must say since then my opponents have cheated me 1 time... but the glitches, etc... dont expect that to go away



#23 Sohal

Sohal

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 01 December 2013 - 10:41 AM

so ?

is someone in the staff looking in the forum ?

will some idea be implemented ?



#24 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 09 December 2013 - 06:13 PM


look the point is i heard it from someone here an I can't leak it.. I'm just posting this so people like me who have asked countless times for program improvements to stop wasting their breath and hope.

 

all we have is the justice committee and i must say since then my opponents have cheated me 1 time... but the glitches, etc... dont expect that to go away

 

M2C, it may be that we are not getting much attention here by any kind of programming staff, and perhaps such staff does not even currently exist, but then why also, I would ask, is the site still up at all?  Isn't someone still paying the bills to keep us afloat online?  If so, and if they wish to keep paying them, then maybe they will re-staff the programming ranks down the road.  Okay, so there won't be any immediate action on ideas today.  Does that mean there will never be?  Does it further mean that it is a waste of time to discuss things here in the forums?  If you're going to state that it's a waste of time, I would respond that playing the most perfect, glitch-free online game of Stratego you could imagine could also be viewed as a waste of time.  No one is accomplishing anything earth-shattering here.  But it is fun, and it is also clearly enjoyable for many people to comment in the forums.  So why put down one waste of time over another?   I say we might as well work on solutions to issues for the day they will get acted upon.  

 

Besides, I don't think it's logical to write off forum commentary on the issues when we can still sit here and type into the forums in the first place.  Someone is still paying the bills, and that is de facto proof that our hope is still justified for Stratego.com's return to the road to pre-eminence that it began on. 

 

GLS


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

#25 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 11 December 2013 - 09:08 AM

It just comes down to philosophy. Some would argue that one a rank is earned, it should be their right to keep it until lost. 

 

Other legitimate, different arguments could be made arriving at an opposing conclusion. 

 

LTG, the best compromise is to let the players...or accounts of players, if it be the case...to maintain their ranking, but if they don't play in a certain amount of time, then they should disappear from the ranking board.  Should that player resume, then they can re-enter at their previous ranking.  This is the most fair plan.

 

But we shouldn't have "tenured" Stratego players here.  One new reason why I believe that is the case is that it inflates our community numbers.  Who knows really how many people on the Leader Boards are still active?  Sure, they may fade away, as Trickz says in his post, but then, not that fellow at the top of the Bronze board, as Satan pointed out.  He's been there for months and will be there for life unless you allow him to "fade away" until he returns to active play.  

 

So here's my suggestion:  Rankings stay the same and do not deteriorate.  That's hokey.  But after one month without play, any name will disappear from the list.  Reinstatement at his old ranking will be allowed at any time, up to forever, that the player wishes to return to active play.  If he plays one game his name will reappear on the Leader Board at whatever level he achieves after playing just one game upon his return.  The one month clock would then begin again.  

 

This would be fair to everyone.  And, it would give someone actively playing, but lower ranked, a chance to make the Leader Board for awhile when an inactive name falls off.  If someone has multiple accounts, which is clearly against the rules but commonly done around here, then only the name that is not playing will fall off.  This will serve to encourage active play.  That, I submit, should be the philosophy we espouse here.  If we don't, we could end up with a lot of "sitters" that may very well slide off "eventually" but who will be like a chronic eyesore to the desires of healthy newcomers who are trying for Leader Board recognition.  

 

GLS


  • LearningThisGame 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

#26 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 11 December 2013 - 05:28 PM

LTG, the best compromise is to let the players...or accounts of players, if it be the case...to maintain their ranking, but if they don't play in a certain amount of time, then they should disappear from the ranking board.  Should that player resume, then they can re-enter at their previous ranking.  This is the most fair plan.

 

But we shouldn't have "tenured" Stratego players here.  One new reason why I believe that is the case is that it inflates our community numbers.  Who knows really how many people on the Leader Boards are still active?  Sure, they may fade away, as Trickz says in his post, but then, not that fellow at the top of the Bronze board, as Satan pointed out.  He's been there for months and will be there for life unless you allow him to "fade away" until he returns to active play.  

 

So here's my suggestion:  Rankings stay the same and do not deteriorate.  That's hokey.  But after one month without play, any name will disappear from the list.  Reinstatement at his old ranking will be allowed at any time, up to forever, that the player wishes to return to active play.  If he plays one game his name will reappear on the Leader Board at whatever level he achieves after playing just one game upon his return.  The one month clock would then begin again.  

 

This would be fair to everyone.  And, it would give someone actively playing, but lower ranked, a chance to make the Leader Board for awhile when an inactive name falls off.  If someone has multiple accounts, which is clearly against the rules but commonly done around here, then only the name that is not playing will fall off.  This will serve to encourage active play.  That, I submit, should be the philosophy we espouse here.  If we don't, we could end up with a lot of "sitters" that may very well slide off "eventually" but who will be like a chronic eyesore to the desires of healthy newcomers who are trying for Leader Board recognition.  

 

GLS

 

Overall, I agree. 


How can I help you?

#27 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,949 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 11 December 2013 - 06:53 PM

Personally I do not totally agree. It is explicitely written in the rules (point 4.2) that having several accounts is considered "unfair playing" however the whole point 4.2 refers rather to player trying to use unfair methods to cheat and obtain a victory there where they should not have won. This situation is clearly not ok and shall be punished.

However there maybe other reasons why somebody creates different accounts which do not appear to me as beeing unfair:

1) For less experienced players the number 1 silver ranking of Satan-NL is almost unachievable, so they may need to fight for other more reachable objectives and possibly beeing bronze number 1 is already a satisfying accomplishment. So I perfectly understand this "Werner something to stay here as number 1 bronze without playing. This goal to be bronze number 1 is probably as difficult to reach as beeing silver number 1 ... if you don't believe just try to be bronze number 1!

2) Again less experienced player may wish to have a second or third account just to try new tactics, new setups or just test new way of moving. Such accounts do not have the target to become silver number 1 but to just gain experience. this doesn't sound to me to be unfair practice

3) There maybe different members of the same family who wish to play this fantastic game, so they may open different accounts for each family member but they will all have the same IP address and you cannot avoide that one member of a family may wish to help another one who has more difficulty. Is that considered unfair?

4) Some player may also wish to fight against themselves, so they move up until a certain ranking with their first account and then try to reach it again with the second account. When the second account goes over the first account then he plays again the first account until it goes up and so on... in order to always maintain his best ranking as high as possible in the ranking list. Again for me this is not unfair. During the first tournament even the top player Manningto cruz recognized having played with his second account "game over" and nobody of the TC/JC considered this as unfair practice... keep smiling :)

 

Anyway I agree that the ranking list shall be somehow cleaned from old and unused accounts. For me the good method could be to take model of the Tennis ATP ranking system where ranking points are valid only for 12 months. If after 12 months you do not confirm at least the same number of points you would have gained 12 months earlier your ranking decreases. So if you don't play for 12 consecutive months your ranking goes back to zero.

 

Napoleon 1er


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#28 Where Is Ya Flag

Where Is Ya Flag

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Marshal

Posted 11 December 2013 - 07:13 PM

@ Napoleon..

 

12 months?

Thats far from realistic..

We ain't even sure if this site will survive the upcoming 12 months.

 

Somewhere on this forum I saw this example of another sport..

Not sure which one and to lazy to search for it. Basicly, it is about those who don't play for 3/4 weeks they get removed of the leaderboards untill they play again, gettin back their ELO they had..

 

Nevertheless, prioirity, in my eyes is to fix the leaderboards in general..

Diamond and even Gold LB's are useless.. We got sooo many accounts who don't appear on any LB and might have a few who float in between bronze and silver, leaving them, NOWHERE.


What you lookin' at? You all a bunch of *bleeping* A holes. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be. You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your *bleeping* fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So...what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide--how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say goodnight to the bad guy!

2zjf5h4.jpg


#29 Luckypapa

Luckypapa

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 11 December 2013 - 07:49 PM

Anyway I agree that the ranking list shall be somehow cleaned from old and unused accounts. For me the good method could be to take model of the Tennis ATP ranking system where ranking points are valid only for 12 months. If after 12 months you do not confirm at least the same number of points you would have gained 12 months earlier your ranking decreases. So if you don't play for 12 consecutive months your ranking goes back to zero.

 

Napoleon 1er

 

Thats what I said too Napoleon in an earlier post. It seems more fair to me when you have to work to continue your ranking on a certain level.

I can imagine this is not wanted by (some) players. Maybe they have to play a lot more to keep all (of maybe just one) account on a high rank. But everyone has, so it is still a fair method. Werner is a good example who has to show up again, but there are lots of these accounts.

 

What does the ISF say about this? Maybe Nortrom (or anyone else who is aware of these rules) can help us out here.

 

Lucky


The secret of happiness is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you should do.


#30 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 11 December 2013 - 08:42 PM

There's nothing wrong with multiple accounts.

Yes, it could be that someone knows your army with his other account but that chance could very well be reversible too.

As long the game is fair with fair moves, there is no problem.

 

Glitching is the main problem on this site, followed by the lack of an automatic draw rule.

If your opponent doesn't want to accept your tie while it's clearly a tie,...then this should also be considered to punish.

The punishments will not be so severe as cheating/glitch attempts of course cuz' it's of a lower degree.

 

Trashtalking, time wasting, disconnection moves,....well, it's maybe not so nice but is it really a problem?

Does it affect the outcome of a game? No, it doesn't so why should we solve a problem which isn't a problem at all?

 

Glitchers and tie refusers, they need to be punished.


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#31 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 12 December 2013 - 05:19 AM

Personally I do not totally agree. It is explicitely written in the rules (point 4.2) that having several accounts is considered "unfair playing" however the whole point 4.2 refers rather to player trying to use unfair methods to cheat and obtain a victory there where they should not have won. This situation is clearly not ok and shall be punished.

However there maybe other reasons why somebody creates different accounts which do not appear to me as beeing unfair:

1) For less experienced players the number 1 silver ranking of Satan-NL is almost unachievable, so they may need to fight for other more reachable objectives and possibly beeing bronze number 1 is already a satisfying accomplishment. So I perfectly understand this "Werner something to stay here as number 1 bronze without playing. This goal to be bronze number 1 is probably as difficult to reach as beeing silver number 1 ... if you don't believe just try to be bronze number 1!

2) Again less experienced player may wish to have a second or third account just to try new tactics, new setups or just test new way of moving. Such accounts do not have the target to become silver number 1 but to just gain experience. this doesn't sound to me to be unfair practice

3) There maybe different members of the same family who wish to play this fantastic game, so they may open different accounts for each family member but they will all have the same IP address and you cannot avoide that one member of a family may wish to help another one who has more difficulty. Is that considered unfair?

4) Some player may also wish to fight against themselves, so they move up until a certain ranking with their first account and then try to reach it again with the second account. When the second account goes over the first account then he plays again the first account until it goes up and so on... in order to always maintain his best ranking as high as possible in the ranking list. Again for me this is not unfair. During the first tournament even the top player Manningto cruz recognized having played with his second account "game over" and nobody of the TC/JC considered this as unfair practice... keep smiling :)

 

Anyway I agree that the ranking list shall be somehow cleaned from old and unused accounts. For me the good method could be to take model of the Tennis ATP ranking system where ranking points are valid only for 12 months. If after 12 months you do not confirm at least the same number of points you would have gained 12 months earlier your ranking decreases. So if you don't play for 12 consecutive months your ranking goes back to zero.

 

Napoleon 1er

 

Napoleon 1 er, I'm not sure what the rules are you are referring to with "point 4.2".  Can you give a link to these rules?  I am referring to the "General Forum Rules", the link to which is:  http://forum.strateg...-rules/#entry41  

 

It looks to me like the multiple account rule is found at point 1, bullet 11 in the above post by the Admins.  There is absolutely nothing written about the "why's" of the rule, it is just simply in black and white that multiple accounts are not allowed (notice that's not "aloud", Trickz). Pretty simple.  So whether one feels it is cheating, morally questionable, or just no big deal, having multiple accounts is clearly against the rules here at Stratego.com.

 

But going a bit further, Napoleon, it may be that a second account can be used in a neutral kind of way as you describe in the second and fourth points above, but it is also true that there is unfairness in the situation of someone Silver beginning a new account and then giving everyone in the lower ranks a loss until he catches up to his other account.  Also, although it would be rare, a person playing himself is possible with all these multiple accounts.  (I must admit I don't understand the M2C reference and point you make above.)  That would clearly be a questionable match.

 

As to your third point, no we can't do anything about aid at home or multiple accounts per IP address.  But let's not let that deter us from taking a stance on the propriety of multiple accounts.

 

So my question has always been, why allow multiple accounts?   Why not insist everyone play with one account only and take their bumps and bruises in learning with that single account?  This is clearly more honest than having a "practice" or "learning" account, as you describe.  This said, and even with the rule on my side in this issue, I know I'm a lone voice speaking out against this practice of multiple accounts.  The reason the J.C. doesn't do anything about it is that they also probably have more than one account.  This "rule" has fallen so far from daily enforcement as to not be a rule any longer, that is plain.  But I still believe in it.  I think it would be nice to know that we have one person/one account here at Stratego.com.  As it is, no one can really say how many real live "people" are playing at this site.  I think the founders believed this same way and that's why the rule is in there.

------------

As to your 12 month proposition above on ELO points, I could be persuaded to agree with you.  I initially said "forever" but a year is a wealth of time to return if one wishes to.  If they get reset in 12 months, I don't see a problem.  

 

But I do have a disagreement with you concerning *Werner*1 at the #1 Bronze spot.  You say it's a hard accomplishment, but that's not the problem.  Anyone that high is a good player, true.  What the problem is is the luck involved.  For *Werner*1 to be where he is, he had to get lucky to beat someone so as to perfectly raise his score to 599 and not  600 (or he'd been in the Silver camp).  I don't dispute the fact that getting there is a tricky proposition, but there's clearly a bit of luck involved in hitting that spot exactly.  Moreover, he has to have a "higher" 599 than the other 599's on the board.  If *Werner*1 in his last game had beat a higher ranked player and ended up in the low 600's and on the Silver Leader Board, maybe he wouldn't have been so encouraged to let this account "sit"?

 

But whether you agree with that assessment or not, it is still a fact that we shouldn't continue to honor *Werner*1 with the #1 Bronze spot if he is not going to play (or play with that account anyway).  I say we should kick him off and make room for someone more active.

 

GLS


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

#32 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 12 December 2013 - 05:30 AM

There's nothing wrong with multiple accounts.

Yes, it could be that someone knows your army with his other account but that chance could very well be reversible too.

As long the game is fair with fair moves, there is no problem.

 

Glitching is the main problem on this site, followed by the lack of an automatic draw rule.

If your opponent doesn't want to accept your tie while it's clearly a tie,...then this should also be considered to punish.

The punishments will not be so severe as cheating/glitch attempts of course cuz' it's of a lower degree.

 

Trashtalking, time wasting, disconnection moves,....well, it's maybe not so nice but is it really a problem?

Does it affect the outcome of a game? No, it doesn't so why should we solve a problem which isn't a problem at all?

 

Glitchers and tie refusers, they need to be punished.

 

Trickz, uh, yeah, officially here at Stratego.com it is clearly against the rules to have multiple accounts.  (link below)    If being against the rules means "there's nothing wrong with multiple accounts", then at least honestly admit we ought to get rid of the rule and adopt what the majority apparently believes in here.  

 

I, as I have said already today to Napoleon above, feel that we should keep the rule and hold to one account/one player.  Why should people have "practice" accounts?  Stand on your name.  Stand on your one account.  Take your hits and your victories and shine as much as you can.  Don't hide your dirty laundry in multiple accounts.  It's not honest to others or yourself.

 

http://forum.strateg...-rules/#entry41

 

GLS


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

#33 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

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

Posted 12 December 2013 - 07:08 AM

Trickz, uh, yeah, officially here at Stratego.com it is clearly against the rules to have multiple accounts.  (link below)    If being against the rules means "there's nothing wrong with multiple accounts", then at least honestly admit we ought to get rid of the rule and adopt what the majority apparently believes in here.  

 

I, as I have said already today to Napoleon above, feel that we should keep the rule and hold to one account/one player.  Why should people have "practice" accounts?  Stand on your name.  Stand on your one account.  Take your hits and your victories and shine as much as you can.  Don't hide your dirty laundry in multiple accounts.  It's not honest to others or yourself.

 

http://forum.strateg...-rules/#entry41

 

GLS

 

Gary, I believed we covered this issue of multiple accounts when you created this thread here:

 

http://forum.strateg...e-account-rule/

 

However, Trickz is right our biggest concern is this order:

 

1) Cheaters/glitchers

2) Tie refusals 

3) Abusive players

 

We are still discussing what we will do with 2) but, we have taken action on a number of abusive players by banning their ISP for a set amount of time.  Again things are far from running smooth here, but since the Justice Committee has come into existence we have taken out a number of habitual cheaters and forced them into hiding on less than desirable names and we are still catching them in the act.  



#34 The Maestro

The Maestro

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,217 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 12 December 2013 - 10:15 AM

Another highly interesting topic and there is much to say about all the things mentioned, mostly about the rules.

 

Most important in these cases is: "what needs to be achieved?".

 

Asking that question should be the very first step, followed by HOW do we do that. 

 

And soon you will notice some very interesting facts, like different people wanting complete different things (even out of such a simple thing as playing an online game), and then the chaos starts.... 

 

So I suggest that when people are posting on issues like rule changes, ratings, accounts etc they should always explain "what needs to be achieved?" and how, and thus, what kind of player they are. We will probably end up with 3 or 4 types/groups of serious players and it is a lot easier to move on from there and make rules that are acceptable for all these groups.



#35 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 12 December 2013 - 09:39 PM

Gary, I believed we covered this issue of multiple accounts when you created this thread here:

 

http://forum.strateg...e-account-rule/

 

However, Trickz is right our biggest concern is this order:

 

1) Cheaters/glitchers

2) Tie refusals 

3) Abusive players

 

We are still discussing what we will do with 2) but, we have taken action on a number of abusive players by banning their ISP for a set amount of time.  Again things are far from running smooth here, but since the Justice Committee has come into existence we have taken out a number of habitual cheaters and forced them into hiding on less than desirable names and we are still catching them in the act.  

 

Hey, M.G., just because we "covered" a topic before doesn't mean it's a dead or resolved issue.  This thing about one account is just sleeping.  It's wrong to have someone play with more than one account and obscure their true abilities to their opponent.  If I see someone playing at 150-200, I'll play a certain way with certain expectations of their actions.  But if this particular 150-200 player is in reality a Silver who has "started over", then I'm being deceived when I choose my setup based upon my own prior experiences with opponents of different strata.  

 

Perhaps if players with multiple accounts would reveal this at the outset of their games that they have, say, three accounts with a high ranking of 675, it would be okay with me.  But the way things are now, it's deceptive.  

 

Besides, the "smart matching" of the computer is also deceived.  When a Silver starts over he won't get commensurate players as opponents because his "new" account is rated so low.  As I said before, this just leaves a trail of destruction in the wake of such a Silver "newbie" as he quickly plows through the true newbies to return to his other account's level.  In other words, there'll be more losses handed out to the unsuspecting lower ranks than would have otherwise been.  That's not a major thing, perhaps, but it's certainly not fair.

 

As for the 1,2,3 list I applaud you for your work on #1.  #2 begins to be an issue of human behavior and #3 totally is.  I don't think the J.C. can ever hope to rectify #3.  We can set the programming to eliminate #1 and #2 problems.  But "abusive players"?  You start to think like those hate crimes types when you seek to eliminate abusive players. What constitutes "abusive"?  No, it ain't a-gonna happen.   The rules we set up here are only good for people who are able to be civil with one another.  They are wholly inadequate for people who are not (to borrow from President John Adams' memorable quote).  

 

Programming should, ultimately, be the answer for #1 and #2.  The J.C. should, in all honesty, try to get themselves programmed out of a job.  But I do stand behind your efforts here in the interim.

 

GLS


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

#36 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 12 December 2013 - 09:56 PM

Another highly interesting topic and there is much to say about all the things mentioned, mostly about the rules.

 

Most important in these cases is: "what needs to be achieved?".

 

Asking that question should be the very first step, followed by HOW do we do that. 

 

And soon you will notice some very interesting facts, like different people wanting complete different things (even out of such a simple thing as playing an online game), and then the chaos starts.... 

 

So I suggest that when people are posting on issues like rule changes, ratings, accounts etc they should always explain "what needs to be achieved?" and how, and thus, what kind of player they are. We will probably end up with 3 or 4 types/groups of serious players and it is a lot easier to move on from there and make rules that are acceptable for all these groups.

 

The Maestro, it's a good point.  Some people here want the Sci Fi desperately.  Some want Piece Reveal.  Some want an Auto Win/Loss based upon material value, while the rest of us want the straightforward Auto Draw.  Some want to be able to decline to play certain opponents.  Some, like me, want to get rid of 2 Square.  There are varying desires out there, to be sure.

 

As far as "what needs to be achieved?" goes, I would only state that we should continue to strive for rules that keep the purity of our game intact here at Stratego.com. Right now things are not perfect, but they're awfully solid in a number of areas.  Jumbo has given us a very nice place to play at this time, and I think its potential is worth continuing to work toward.

 

GLS


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

#37 Luckypapa

Luckypapa

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 12 December 2013 - 10:27 PM

Some, like me, want to get rid of 2 Square.  

 

Gary, I had my problems with the two squarerule and lost a lot of pieces in many matches. But: Last week I enjoyed this rule because it gave me the possibility to capture a colonel. At the end I 've got the victory after beïng down 2 majors and 2 or 3 captains, but with one colonel up. It costed me some time to get it 'into my fingers' and I'm sure I will be caught many times by my opponent because I react to late on his moves, but I like it now.

 

You also said something about more accounts. Usely as I play I look not only what the ELO of my opponent is, but also his win/losspercentage. It doesn't say everything, I know, there can be a lot of QA-matches within the percentage, but you have an idea of the strength of your opponent. And I'm honest, you can lose from everyone and also win from everyone, I don't think there is a lot of stenghtdifference between a 300 or 400 ELO. Lower ranked players can be (real) new ones with high potential.

 

Lucky


The secret of happiness is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you should do.


#38 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 12 December 2013 - 11:24 PM

Gary, I had my problems with the two squarerule and lost a lot of pieces in many matches. But: Last week I enjoyed this rule because it gave me the possibility to capture a colonel. At the end I 've got the victory after beïng down 2 majors and 2 or 3 captains, but with one colonel up. It costed me some time to get it 'into my fingers' and I'm sure I will be caught many times by my opponent because I react to late on his moves, but I like it now.

 

You also said something about more accounts. Usely as I play I look not only what the ELO of my opponent is, but also his win/losspercentage. It doesn't say everything, I know, there can be a lot of QA-matches within the percentage, but you have an idea of the strength of your opponent. And I'm honest, you can lose from everyone and also win from everyone, I don't think there is a lot of stenghtdifference between a 300 or 400 ELO. Lower ranked players can be (real) new ones with high potential.

 

Lucky

 

We have a problem of communication a lot of times.  Not everyone speaks English here.  So often Battle Chat windows are silent on one or both sides.  I would like to think everyone could announce their true ranks, but that would never happen.  The only way to insure an ELO number represents a true rank is to eliminate multiple accounts.  

 

As this is both technically unfeasible, I understand, and not desirable by the many who have more than one account, then I guess we're just stuck with the situation.  In reality I wouldn't mind any one who wanted to start over, so much, but I would take the position that their old account should be deleted when they do. Or they should just get a simple reset of their account ranking.  We DO currently have this ability as it happens when the J.C. resets a player's ranking.  This still wouldn't be fair to all the lower ranks that get mowed down because of the reset, but I don't know how to make things perfect.  At least with one ELO number the rank identity would approach to true eventually.

 

And Luckypapa, you're right.  Anyone can lose to anyone on certain days.  That's what makes the game enjoyable.

 

GLS 


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

#39 The Maestro

The Maestro

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,217 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 13 December 2013 - 08:40 AM

My take on the "problems"

 

First: what needs to be achieved?

 

Pure and simple, a place where all kind of people can play this great game. That means the brilliant players, the crappy ones, the oldies, the kids, all nations etc.  If you want to play "to be the very best", "just for fun", "to kill the time", "are interested in the way the human mind/brain works", "to improve your skills", "looking for new friends' or just "like to go to war" its is all fine with me. That is just anpersonal approach, which is all yours, and should be that, but "only" just that. Your personal approach should in NO WAY interfere with other people.  That means fairness for all and from all.

 

Then: How do we achieve this?

 

We should have rules that cover this. We should not have rules, just to have rules. Or a bunch of rules that we use whenever we want, but skip when we want to. Less is more. So we need as little as possible rules, with as little as possible exceptions etc, but they must be VERY clear. So instead of just throwing out a bunch of rules they should be explained, more important it should be explained WHAT the purpose exactly is. It should literaly say what we want to achieve and how these rules will (try to) do that. That way there will be less confusion and less discussions. 

 

I think the problems that were brought up in this thread are all important and need specific rules if we want to achieve our goal, a (fair) place where people like to go and play

 

There should be very specific rules on:

 

1. glitching

2. refusing tie

3. abusive players / trash talk

4. multiple accounts

5. ELO ranking/match making/rank sitters

 

Within the current systme ALL first four are ways of cheating and #5 is one of the main reasons why they happen. So to achieve our goal we can not give priority to just one or two, we need to take on all 5 at once and I think that could be a LOT easier than most people think.  


  • Luckypapa and Napoleon 1er like this

#40 The Maestro

The Maestro

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,217 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 13 December 2013 - 09:07 AM

I start with #5. ELO ranking/match making/rank sitters

 

Question: do we need ranking at all?

 

I think it is very important to have a ranking, since it is huge attraction for new and current players to start and keep playing. Human nature at it's best!

 

The current ranking system makes no sense. There should be a new system showing all players to everyone. It is perfectly fine to have subdivisions (in fact and this will come in to play later in this post, it could be a HUGE step against cheating), but than more like 100-200, 300-450, 450-600, 700-800, 800 plus. 

 

Question: do we need the auto matchmaking?

 

Yes we do! This is the greatest feature on the whole site. I played many different games (cards, backgammon etc) on different sites and as soon as you allow people to pick their own opponents you're done. It opens the door the huge cheating. So let's all be greatful we have this. 

 

But...it needs to be a lot better/more strict. As long as a 150 player can draw a Silver player (and I had 2 of these games in the last few weeks), it is an open invitation to cheating. Glitching pays off way more nad it also leads to multiple accounts, because a high player can screw another high player out of a lot of point when they use their lower account.

 

If we change the ranking system and have the matchmaking follow that we solve a lot of that. The matchmaking should be ONLY in your subdivision. That way you only play people within a 100-150 range. There is no use now for multiple accounts because there is no way you will ever get to play a top 10 player with your new 200 account. You can still open or keep a multiple account to try new things etc, or for fun or crazy stuff and I am ok with that. So the whole rule of no multiple accounts can be thrown out. That's one less rule and a big improvement on other issues as well.

 

We can also add a button asking you, that when you want to play a game, that instead of just playing in your subdivision you don't mind getting an ooponent one subdivision lower. Or boxes to tick saying, 1 division lower, 2 lower etc. Not higher of course. I can imagine that this would be nice for the top 20 or so players, because otherwise they might not get an opponent or always the same ones...

 

We can also give the option of unranked game, that way you can play anyone and there should be no cheating because there is no use for it.

 

Then we have the ranksitters. I really don't care about them but understand that some people will find this annoying, so some sort of penalty point when inactive are fine with me.


  • Napoleon 1er likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users