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

#41 Luckypapa

Luckypapa

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 13 December 2013 - 09:16 AM

@ Maestro:

Multiple account is a difficult one I am afraid, because if more people in one household are playing, they are maybe losing those accounts.
But I totaly agree with you, points 1 and 2 have as goal to rise up in the rankings. If it is not, these players are even more pathetic than I thought.
However, I like the rankingsystem and yes, I want to be as high as possible. Competitionelement, you know.
And the pairingsystem is good I believe. When you don't want to play a low levelplayer, then cancel the search after 5 or 10 seconds and start over searching. It may happen that you will find no one to play against.

Lucky

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


#42 The Maestro

The Maestro

    Major

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

Posted 13 December 2013 - 09:24 AM

#4. multiple accounts

 

As said under #5. With  a slightly adjusted, better auto-matching I think the real problem is solved. 

 

#3. Abusive players

 

Since the goal is to create a place where all people can play and feel good, we need to get rid of all the trashtalking. It should NOT be part of online gaming. You a playing people you don't know and this game is not all about you. So don't start herassing people just because YOU think that is cool. There are certain members that really love to do it. Add them to your friends list, invite them for as many games as you want and start throwing insults. Leave others alone or get banned. So this is where the JC has a job to do. 

 

#2 Tie refusual

Can be only solved by the programmers, until then it is a JC thing

 

#1 Glitching

Same thing, a technical problem that needs to be solved, until then the JC is doing a great job!


  • Napoleon 1er likes this

#43 The Maestro

The Maestro

    Major

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

Posted 13 December 2013 - 10:01 AM

And then we have the icing on the cake.....the tourney!

 

The category of people that come here to be the best are the ones that want to join a tourney. So the rules for the tourney should be all focused on that. The "just for fun" aspect and "I want to make new friends" are really not very important I think.

 

A lot was learned during the last (and first) tourney that only just finished. The tourney rules should be even more specific than the general rules, there is NO room for unclear rules. Once again we don't only need rules but a CLEAR explanation of the "why" and what we are trying to achieve: we are catering to the hardcore players here,  the "killers", who all want to be the best (or at least as good as possible). In my opinion that means you have to be clearly better than your opponent to advance.

 

This eliminates the CL idea with groups of 4 players, with the best 2 qualifiying, because how can we accept an overall winner that might have lost 2 times to their group winner, still advanced and then win it all. Makes no sense, other then that it is "great fun", but I think the object here is to have an undisputed winner. The 2 qualifying idea also leaves a LOT of room for cheating/manipulating and we don't need that.

 

I am fine with just 1 game between players, although I really like the concept of the last 4 playing a best of 3 as long as a draw doesn't count. The whole tourney should be without draw results, just play again immediately until there is a winner.

 

Goal: The tourney should be open and equal to all.

 

Solution "Open": everyone can join, as long as they sign in through the forum. It is unfair and ridiculous to FORCE people to join federations etc if they want to want to play the tourney. And yes, no double account etc. You can still have federations for whatever reasons (fun, friends etc) but that is something else.

 

Solution "equal": newcomers, top ranked people or people who reached the last 4 during the last tourney.....it doesn't matter. No qualifying for certain people (discrimiation!), just make it knock out and all is fair. 

 

The TC should be completely ABOVE it all: they can't play the tourney and they can not show any personal opinions on players, games etc.  This is a MUST for a tourney to succeed, so it can't be taken lightly.

 

Maybe it is nice to offer the winner (or maybe even the #2) some ranking points instead of battle coins. That way we might attract even more players.


  • Napoleon 1er likes this

#44 Dekaeneas-Spy

Dekaeneas-Spy

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,390 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 13 December 2013 - 11:08 AM

And then we have the icing on the cake.....the tourney!

 

The category of people that come here to be the best are the ones that want to join a tourney. So the rules for the tourney should be all focused on that. The "just for fun" aspect and "I want to make new friends" are really not very important I think.

 

A lot was learned during the last (and first) tourney that only just finished. The tourney rules should be even more specific than the general rules, there is NO room for unclear rules. Once again we don't only need rules but a CLEAR explanation of the "why" and what we are trying to achieve: we are catering to the hardcore players here,  the "killers", who all want to be the best (or at least as good as possible). In my opinion that means you have to be clearly better than your opponent to advance.

 

This eliminates the CL idea with groups of 4 players, with the best 2 qualifiying, because how can we accept an overall winner that might have lost 2 times to their group winner, still advanced and then win it all. Makes no sense, other then that it is "great fun", but I think the object here is to have an undisputed winner. The 2 qualifying idea also leaves a LOT of room for cheating/manipulating and we don't need that.

 

I am fine with just 1 game between players, although I really like the concept of the last 4 playing a best of 3 as long as a draw doesn't count. The whole tourney should be without draw results, just play again immediately until there is a winner.

 

Goal: The tourney should be open and equal to all.

 

Solution "Open": everyone can join, as long as they sign in through the forum. It is unfair and ridiculous to FORCE people to join federations etc if they want to want to play the tourney. And yes, no double account etc. You can still have federations for whatever reasons (fun, friends etc) but that is something else.

 

Solution "equal": newcomers, top ranked people or people who reached the last 4 during the last tourney.....it doesn't matter. No qualifying for certain people (discrimiation!), just make it knock out and all is fair. 

 

The TC should be completely ABOVE it all: they can't play the tourney and they can not show any personal opinions on players, games etc.  This is a MUST for a tourney to succeed, so it can't be taken lightly.

 

Maybe it is nice to offer the winner (or maybe even the #2) some ranking points instead of battle coins. That way we might attract even more players.

 

This is your opinion and I respect that, but i disagree about almost by what has been said.

 

 

i desagree:

"This eliminates the CL idea with groups of 4 players, with the best 2 qualifiying, because how can we accept an overall winner that might have lost 2 times to their group winner, still advanced and then win it all. Makes no sense, other then that it is "great fun", but I think the object here is to have an undisputed winner. The 2 qualifying idea also leaves a LOT of room for cheating/manipulating and we don't need that."

 

Τhe system of the Group is successful and tested in the king of sports, football.

 

 

i desagree:

¨I am fine with just 1 game between players, although I really like the concept of the last 4 playing a best of 3 as long as a draw doesn't count. The whole tourney should be without draw results, just play again immediately until there is a winner".
 

one game is totally unfair especially for good players.

 

if a player is disqualified from the tournament immediately would have no incentive to watch it.
 

i desagree:

 

"Solution "Open": everyone can join, as long as they sign in through the forum. It is unfair and ridiculous to FORCE people to join federations etc if they want to want to play the tourney. And yes, no double account etc. You can still have federations for whatever reasons (fun, friends etc) but that is something else"

 

 

The role of having federations is: 

1. organise the human potential in this site as better as we can (difficult to have players who can participate with two or three accounts).

2. isolate cheaters and aliases

3. creation of national teams

4. better organization of events ( CL, world cup)

 

i desagree:

"The TC should be completely ABOVE it all: they can't play the tourney and they can not show any personal opinions on players, games etc.  This is a MUST for a tourney to succeed, so it can't be taken lightly."

 

The committee will consists of 5 persons.
Not by 1 person.

 

I agree:

"Maybe it is nice to offer the winner (or maybe even the #2) some ranking points instead of battle coins. That way we might attract even more players."

 

Ι propose 1st  ->  100 points   ,   2nd ->  65 points   ,   3nd and 4nd  ->  35 points

 

 

 

Dekaeneas-Spy



#45 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Colonel

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

Posted 13 December 2013 - 11:41 PM

Dear Stratego fan friends,

 

I like a lot all the great ideas, the proposals, the share of opinions and above all the very perceivable passion that all participants to this highly interesting forum are bringing. This shows an extremely strong interest from many different people from all over the world to see this website getting improved and beeing given a clear future. Even if it seems that the owners of this website have some capacity issues with programming/IT resources, possibly also with financing, I believe we all lovers of this wonderful website shall get unified, proactive and constructive. Because, as in a democracy, you will never have 100% of the people agreeing with one single opinion I suggest we proceed by identifying which ideas are gathering a majority of agreeing opinions and this for each proposed action to improve this website.

So my proposal is to establish a list of all proposals and each player who wants to express his opinion can vote by adding a :) (or bolding the proposal) if he likes the proposal or a :angry: (or strike through the proposal) if he doesn't like the proposal . Let me try to initiate this list of proposals as I could gather it from all the various posts on this forum and reply directly with my personal vision as example.

WHoever is interested to vote shall just copy the list of proposals into his own post and vote for himself. When we will have a sufficiently high number of votes we can identify a majority and make a concrete "unified" proposal to the owners of the website. Because this website is so great I can just not imagine that it will die, i'm absolutely convinced there will be a new admin team / investors very soon who will for sure welcome such spontaneous "unified" proposal of improvement. SO let's work together on this proposals list (if you wish to add some proposals to this list just feel free to do it, I do not pretend to have all ideas). My first idea is to let these votes open for 1 month until january 14 (first trial) and then see if the results are usable and how to make the correct interpretation of them:

 

1) Do you agree that the N°1 priority for improvement shall be the elimination of the so called "glitsch bug" when tie/pause request are made by your opponent on your turn? :)

2) Do you agree that to avoide endless games the system shall automatically declare a draw if none of the players has attacked a piece of the other within a period of 10 minutes? 20 minutes? 30 minutes? 40 minutes? :) 50 minutes? another duration?

3) Would you like to see a more user-friendly ranking list (leaderboard) allowing to see all players with a cursor on the right allowing to move in the list from N° 1 to last player? :)

4) If you like the proposal 3) above would you appreciate to be able to filter the ranking list by player's name? by ranking range? by points range? by % of victories? by country? by league (bronze, silver etc,,,)? by date of last played game? by other items: please list them

5) Do you like the system of league bronze? :) silver? :)gold? :)platinum? :angry: your comment: I like the fact that the highest possible ranking is practically impossible to reach, otherwise when people would have reached such maximum level they will not have anymore fun to fight for the ranking and may get disinterested from this website. The platinum league shall be removed for time beeing and could be reintroduced later when the top players will be ranking around gold general (should this happen)

6) Would you like to see more different type of rankings (not just the all time best ranking by league as it is today) such as best rank increase in last month? best rank increase in last 12 months? highest % of victories? Highest number of game played in last month? Longest win streak in a ranking game? other type of ranking: if yes which one?

7) Do you like the possibility to have multiple accounts? :) Remark: I like this because it allows to fight for multiple objectives

8) With what frequency do you think tournaments shall be organized 1x per month? 1x per 3 months? 1x per 6 months? :) 1x per year? other proposal, if yes what?

 

... please feel free to complete this list with other proposals

 

Napoleon 1er


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


#46 Where Is Ya Flag

Where Is Ya Flag

    Sergeant

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

Posted 14 December 2013 - 01:03 AM

Dear Stratego fan friends,

 

I like a lot all the great ideas, the proposals, the share of opinions and above all the very perceivable passion that all participants to this highly interesting forum are bringing. This shows an extremely strong interest from many different people from all over the world to see this website getting improved and beeing given a clear future. Even if it seems that the owners of this website have some capacity issues with programming/IT resources, possibly also with financing, I believe we all lovers of this wonderful website shall get unified, proactive and constructive. Because, as in a democracy, you will never have 100% of the people agreeing with one single opinion I suggest we proceed by identifying which ideas are gathering a majority of agreeing opinions and this for each proposed action to improve this website.

So my proposal is to establish a list of all proposals and each player who wants to express his opinion can vote by adding a :) (or bolding the proposal) if he likes the proposal or a :angry: (or strike through the proposal) if he doesn't like the proposal . Let me try to initiate this list of proposals as I could gather it from all the various posts on this forum and reply directly with my personal vision as example.

WHoever is interested to vote shall just copy the list of proposals into his own post and vote for himself. When we will have a sufficiently high number of votes we can identify a majority and make a concrete "unified" proposal to the owners of the website. Because this website is so great I can just not imagine that it will die, i'm absolutely convinced there will be a new admin team / investors very soon who will for sure welcome such spontaneous "unified" proposal of improvement. SO let's work together on this proposals list (if you wish to add some proposals to this list just feel free to do it, I do not pretend to have all ideas). My first idea is to let these votes open for 1 month until january 14 (first trial) and then see if the results are usable and how to make the correct interpretation of them:

 

1) Do you agree that the N°1 priority for improvement shall be the elimination of the so called "glitsch bug" when tie/pause request are made by your opponent on your turn? :)

2) Do you agree that to avoide endless games the system shall automatically declare a draw if none of the players has attacked a piece of the other within a period of 10 minutes? 20 minutes? 30 minutes? 40 minutes? :) 50 minutes? another duration?

3) Would you like to see a more user-friendly ranking list (leaderboard) allowing to see all players with a cursor on the right allowing to move in the list from N° 1 to last player? :)

4) If you like the proposal 3) above would you appreciate to be able to filter the ranking list by player's name? by ranking range? by points range? by % of victories? by country? by league (bronze, silver etc,,,)? by date of last played game? by other items: please list them

5) Do you like the system of league bronze? :) silver? :)gold? :)platinum? :angry: your comment: I like the fact that the highest possible ranking is practically impossible to reach, otherwise when people would have reached such maximum level they will not have anymore fun to fight for the ranking and may get disinterested from this website. The platinum league shall be removed for time beeing and could be reintroduced later when the top players will be ranking around gold general (should this happen)

6) Would you like to see more different type of rankings (not just the all time best ranking by league as it is today) such as best rank increase in last month? best rank increase in last 12 months? highest % of victories? Highest number of game played in last month? Longest win streak in a ranking game? other type of ranking: if yes which one?

7) Do you like the possibility to have multiple accounts? :) Remark: I like this because it allows to fight for multiple objectives

8) With what frequency do you think tournaments shall be organized 1x per month? 1x per 3 months? 1x per 6 months? :) 1x per year? other proposal, if yes what?

 

... please feel free to complete this list with other proposals

 

Napoleon 1er

You know what the problem is with messages like this..

We all got a list with improvements we like to see..

And instead of joining forces we all wanna act like the Messiah..

Most of the things written here has been asked for,  multiple times, in the last half year.

 

What we need is a sticky (maybe add a poll),  made by a mod, which they recon which need to be improved, thanks to ideas of the community..

 

Lastest topic with a list full of improvements is;

http://forum.strateg...amming-changes/

 

But I can link 20 more topics with all great idea's..

It's a shame nothing (can be) changes (d)

 

No offense tho.


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


#47 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

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

Posted 16 December 2013 - 07:06 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.

 

Maestro, very good idea.  I like the thought of division play based upon ranks.  It's simple and one could have the opportunity to opt for a lower division if he wanted.  Interesting idea.  I would add that for the lower fellow who gets assigned this higher ranked player in a match setup by the computer, it should also be optional whether he accepts the "player from above".

 

I like how you connect this issue with the multiple accounts one.  I agree that your plan would dampen the incentive to cheat with new accounts, although I still think that the ideally better answer would be to ban multiple accounts if, through the technology, we could do this. In the absence of this ability, however, your plan seems like a workable one to me.

 

The specs you lay out for the divisions are interesting.  Of course, they would be subject to debate, but they're a good start to my way of thinking.  

 

I only take mild exception to your nonchalance with the rank sitters.  This is perhaps an unimportant and only-annoying-to-some issue, but it would be easy to address.  Let's do just toss the rank sitters off after a month, as I've previously laid out.  Don't take away rank, just kick the sitters off after a month of inactivity.  Is it a big issue?  No. But it's annoying, yes, and could be easily rectified.  So why not fix it?

 

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

#48 The Maestro

The Maestro

    Major

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

Posted 16 December 2013 - 08:32 AM

Gary,

 

The subdivision thing is more for the matchassignment than anything else, I don't need 6 or 8 seperate divisions or leaderboards, although it would be fine as well, because it shows you who is in your "league"

 

As I said punishing ranksitters is fine with me and there are several options. I think deleting after just one month is a little harsh. Some people have workprojects (abroad) for 4, 6 or more weeks. And during summer people are travelling a lot (and long). But I think 3 months would be fine. Maybe a punishment in stages: like a few points per week, invisibility in the rankings after a month (you still have yours points, minus they weekly deductions but are not visible in the rankings) and then the KICK after 3 months....

 

Flag,

 

You are absolutely right. We all have to understand (and come to grips) that there will be no Programming changes soon (or maybe ever) and in fact just be happy that the site is still going.

 

That's why I want to focus more on what we DO have and what we can do with it. Then the rules and tourneys come into play. We can rewrite the rules whenever we want, as long as there is no technical aspect. As I said before, they should include the intentions, the "why, of the rules and be more clear.

 

That's why I am focussing on the tournement, since they will be held while having all the technical limitations. And then it shows there is a lot more than technical limitations. Which brings me to:

 

D-Spy,

 

You are one of the most enthousiastic guys out here and have real heart for the game, this site and probably a lot of other things in life. You are also very self-critical, as in half of your posts you are explaining you know little english and that could be a barrier.

 

And I have to admit that a lot of times I really don't understand what point you try to make and in your post here it's the same. Since I really think it is a "language question" I will try to clarify it:

 

The "why should there be a stratego tourney" question in my opinion has ONE answer: to find out who is the best, no shortcuts, no backdoors. You can NOT compare it with CL football because, the answer to the question "why should there be a football tourney" is very simple nowadays: to make as much MONEY as possible. So let's have lots of (useless) matches, get people in stadiums, sell as many TV Rights as possible and that's it.

 

As you know before the CL we had Europcup 1 and for ages that worked perfectly fine and we had epic matches and great legendary winners. But they thought of a way to make more money and THAT is the only reason for the CL with their groups and #2 in a group qualifiying.

 

Stratego is NOTHING like football. It is not a spectator sport, it is about participating, it will never be on live TV, their will be no TV rights, so it makes NO sense. What's next, you want to pay Nortrom a salary for just playing here, or pay him for JOINING a tournament? That is CL football and that is why it is what it is today. So please let's stay realistic. Also an average player that is in a Stratego tourney is not very much interested in all the other games, (s)he wants to advance and that is it.

 

 Then you are saying that the committe consists of 5 people. I thought about this remark and honestly I really don't get it. I know there are 5 and not 1 and I said that ALL the members (5 or whatever number it will be in the future) should stay out of the tourney and be professional, not showing favouritism or any other remarks.

 

And, once again, when you force people into federations etc it will only lead to LESS people joining the tournament, which is not what we want. The last tourney was cheaterfree (..) and aliasfree as well, so there is NO use beside creating Powerpositions, which could lead to more problems.

 

I hope that it is all clear now and if it isn't, DSpy please just send me an IM (no smileys and bright colours needed) and I will get back to you.



#49 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

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

Posted 17 December 2013 - 06:23 AM

Gary,

 

As I said punishing ranksitters is fine with me and there are several options. I think deleting after just one month is a little harsh. Some people have workprojects (abroad) for 4, 6 or more weeks. And during summer people are travelling a lot (and long). But I think 3 months would be fine. Maybe a punishment in stages: like a few points per week, invisibility in the rankings after a month (you still have yours points, minus they weekly deductions but are not visible in the rankings) and then the KICK after 3 months....

 

 

The Maestro,  to clarify what my plan was for dealing with Rank Sitters.  

 

I never said they should lose their rank at all.  I never said that both them and their ELO rank should be reset to zero after a merely month or two or three.  I only wanted their names to disappear from the Leader Boards after a month of non-play.  They would still be in computer limbo with their rating intact.  If they play again, they could pick up where they left off.  That was my plan for dealing with rank sitters.  I didn't say to delete both them and their rank after one month.  I said only remove their name from the Leader Board, until they play again.  It was rather innocuous suggestion, I felt.  And best of all, simple.

 

One argument for depreciating ELO rank points from Rank Sitters might be that when they do return, they might not actually be as sharp or as good as they were before they left.  Of course, this wouldn't be true if they were just playing on a different account all along.  At any rate there might be some other solid reasoning for ELO points deterioration.  My point is, therefore, that it might be prudent not to close the door on the subject of point reductions for Rank Sitters just yet, even though I think the plan I put forth without it is good because of its simplicity.  

 

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

#50 The Maestro

The Maestro

    Major

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

Posted 17 December 2013 - 07:34 AM

Gary,

 

You are 100% right. Just making them invisible (after a month or so) should be enough and is simple. The best solution!



#51 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Colonel

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

Posted 17 December 2013 - 09:06 PM

I observed the silver ranking in the last weeks and very strangely I could observe that Satan-NL and Sohal are both not playing since 3-4 weeks. While there is a certain Dreamcrusher from Holland and Cosinus from France who are climbing up the ranking like crazy in the same period. It looks to me like these 2 new players are second accounts of the first 2. I have personnally no problem with that and understand that they both wish to maintain their ranking at maximum level. So for me it is ok to have a ranking that shows the "all time best player" and with a button you should be able to switch to another ranking with only "the best players in last month" for example. In such way everybody can choose its preferred way of looking at rankings.

You could also imagine ranking by the longest win streak or by "most active players". In fact the system shall allow to see also filtered rankings by country, point range and so on....


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


#52 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 17 December 2013 - 11:10 PM

I observed the silver ranking in the last weeks and very strangely I could observe that Satan-NL and Sohal are both not playing since 3-4 weeks. While there is a certain Dreamcrusher from Holland and Cosinus from France who are climbing up the ranking like crazy in the same period. It looks to me like these 2 new players are second accounts of the first 2. I have personnally no problem with that and understand that they both wish to maintain their ranking at maximum level. So for me it is ok to have a ranking that shows the "all time best player" and with a button you should be able to switch to another ranking with only "the best players in last month" for example. In such way everybody can choose its preferred way of looking at rankings.

You could also imagine ranking by the longest win streak or by "most active players". In fact the system shall allow to see also filtered rankings by country, point range and so on....

It can be a few people,yh. But ya can't really blame them.. They are on top of the leaugue, playing for 2-10 elo.. A Loss would be major Elo drop..

And what would you do, if you faced them all of a sudden?

Wouldn't you rush the shi outta them with all your major pieces on 1 side?


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#53 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

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

Posted 18 December 2013 - 12:55 AM

I observed the silver ranking in the last weeks and very strangely I could observe that Satan-NL and Sohal are both not playing since 3-4 weeks. While there is a certain Dreamcrusher from Holland and Cosinus from France who are climbing up the ranking like crazy in the same period. It looks to me like these 2 new players are second accounts of the first 2. I have personnally no problem with that and understand that they both wish to maintain their ranking at maximum level. So for me it is ok to have a ranking that shows the "all time best player" and with a button you should be able to switch to another ranking with only "the best players in last month" for example. In such way everybody can choose its preferred way of looking at rankings.

You could also imagine ranking by the longest win streak or by "most active players". In fact the system shall allow to see also filtered rankings by country, point range and so on....

 

It's an interesting thought to tweak the Leader Boards in all these different ways.  I think, though, the one thing everyone really wants to know is who's on top now, who's currently the best.  I wonder if it is possible--but I'm guessing no--is it possible to have a Leader Board that identifies all aliases?  Say, for example, Cosinus and Sohal are indeed the same entity (and I don't know, truthfully), let's put an asterisk or some other superscript note by the name Cosinus and have it point to Sohal some how on the Leader Board.  

 

If people are going to have multiple accounts against the rules, then at least they shouldn't object to making it publicly and clearly known their alter egos on this website.  Perhaps it would even discourage multiple accounts if the connections were visible to all.  I can imagine, for some higher up silvers--that it wouldn't be as profitable to play on a subpar second account if everyone could see who they were. Everyone would still play them the way they would play their main account, and there wouldn't be any element of surprise or sneakiness.   This seems fair, doesn't it?

 

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

#54 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 18 December 2013 - 01:39 AM

It can be a few people,yh. But ya can't really blame them.. They are on top of the leaugue, playing for 2-10 elo.. A Loss would be major Elo drop..

And what would you do, if you faced them all of a sudden?

Wouldn't you rush the shi outta them with all your major pieces on 1 side?

 

 

Yo Patty, it's been a long time, how you're doing lad? :D

By the way, if I play such a high dude, my target is to be screwin' fast

his stupid azz so my marsh would be cruisin' mad to bruise his deck

so that he will lose a cap with my loose attack

which isn't smooth in fact

but I don't think this dude expects

that I'm going for a rude attack, ruthless crap

and although the most vets will call it hugely trash,...

I just don't care cuz' meanwhile my chance of winning is improving lad! :D

I will gladly offer my marsh for his col, a major and some lower noobs to have

and with the info I gain, I would be movin' fast

to outnumber him so that he simply doesn't get the time to use his lads.

His marsh or gen won't be able to shoot and blast

cuz' they have to guard the backline in case you wanna lute the flag! :D

Just go wild, attack every spot on the board with another possible lieut to grab,

nuke his set just like Ken and Ryu, Streetfighter's super Hadoeken blast

with a supersmash that will send his body in space to the outter borders of Pluto lad! :D

Just play agressive and his troops will crash, you assume it's wack?

With this tactic I've beaten Spaceman Spiff three times in a row, it's true in fact

and believe me, the dude went mad when I used this tac

to remove his lads and three times in a row I reduced this vet

his hope for winning into ruined plans and that's a proven stat,

the truth is that and it's cool to jack

high pieces with a noobattack

when the only thing you have to do, is to have the guts to go through his deck! ;)

He's willing to offer majors and captains? Wow, I'm all in so I don't have fear to lose this match

and that's why I didn't lose in fact,...luck's on my side? It's true but lad...

three times in a row ain't luck, it's got nothing to do with that

so that's why lotto will always be an essential part of the game.........

 

 

and no, you don't have to thank me for these stupid raps! :D


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#55 maribo

maribo

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Marshal

Posted 24 December 2013 - 08:56 AM

ranking listings suck. Because it is hard to navigate them stupid pages with only 10 names on a page. To be forced to use the scrollbar is ridiculous. That you must sort alphabetically ( I just discovered that part) and still scroll down to find a certain player. That once the game begins the record and ranking are gone from your view.

However those players in the middle 2/3rds of the ranking from 450 to 650, DO have drastic swings in the rankings up or down, which makes your wins meaningful in that you can climb to 625+ and then fall by losing to nincompoops and dropping 21 points. But there is always bastian booger who comes along and makes everything right by bombing his 1 and 2 in the opening 20 moves.



#56 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

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

Posted 13 January 2014 - 01:56 PM

I posted about this topic many moons ago and predicted that as the site community grew and became more skilled, Gold and Platinum levels would be unachievable (contrary to site adminstrator claims). Looking at the rankings today, it certainly appears that my prediction is playing out as expected. If the site wants Gold and/or Platinum levels to come into play, the ranking level threshholds need to be calibrated up one full level - i.e., all those in Silver league now would move up to Gold, and all those in Bronze would move up to Silver and many of those that don't show up at all in the rankings today would be in Bronze.

Benefits:

1) Much better visibility to more players rankings in the site community
2) Put to use Gold Level rankings (the way things are trending today, will never be used)
3) Platimun becomes the elite of the elite (and I still think realistically unachievable - ask Satan-NL)

I would think this would be a relatively easy programatic fix - please implement!

Spiff



In the end it doesn't matter what color level we're called, because a name is just a name. I still like the idea of a unified ranking board showing everybody. This would contain the information of site rank starkly and simply for all to see. To me the color levels and the second descriptor of the ranking titles (Marshal, General, etc.) are only there as an interesting "coloring" of the rankings, albeit one we've all grown fond of and used to.

Having said all that, maybe the color levels could be tweaked as requested by Spiff--this would certainly be simple enough. Or, perhaps we could make a more radical change and do away with the colors altogether? Just forget them entirely. Wouldn't it make more intuitive sense to call the top guys Marshals, followed by Generals at some lower level, than have the current system whereby we have a Spy outranking a Marshal?

To recap, I say we need to establish a no-nonsense unified ranking board that lists every active player. Second, I know it's a big change, but I say do away with colors in the rankings. Keep the military rank names but do away with Silver, Bronze, etc. Establish instead a ranking descriptor system using only the military ranks where we label the top players as low Marshals. For example, 900+ would be in the Marshal camp, and maybe 800+ as Generals. These are only suggestions.

This won't be as simple a thing to do in the programming as what Spiff suggested, but I submit it would be a more complete fix for the ranking complaints, and it won't be terribly complicated.

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

#57 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 18 January 2014 - 08:38 PM

I observed the silver ranking in the last weeks and very strangely I could observe that Satan-NL and Sohal are both not playing since 3-4 weeks. While there is a certain Dreamcrusher from Holland and Cosinus from France who are climbing up the ranking like crazy in the same period. It looks to me like these 2 new players are second accounts of the first 2. I have personnally no problem with that and understand that they both wish to maintain their ranking at maximum level. So for me it is ok to have a ranking that shows the "all time best player" and with a button you should be able to switch to another ranking with only "the best players in last month" for example. In such way everybody can choose its preferred way of looking at rankings.

You could also imagine ranking by the longest win streak or by "most active players". In fact the system shall allow to see also filtered rankings by country, point range and so on....

 

Your suspicions are right on target - annoying multi-account rankings abusers:

 

Satan-NL = DreamCrusher (Hielco)

Sohal = Cosinus

 

Metaforge mandates 20 games played within a month's time to continue to stay visible in the rankings (which is why their ranking list shrunk from 90+ to 30+ since this site became popular).

 

The only explanation I have for Hielco and Sohal (and others) to do this is to protect their primary alias ranking while allowing them to play games on another alias without risk of losing status. Pathetic ego pandering and gaming the rankings. Lightwing (Nortrom) never had to resort to this I might add.

 

Spiff


  • The Maestro likes this

#58 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Captain

  • WC Online Team
  • 823 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 January 2014 - 08:52 PM

People care about rankings way more than necessary. There is no perfect system. ELO is too much of a today's ranking, not a long time ranking. Whatever really, play your game and quit whining about being place #165, #164, or #163


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

 

Follow the 3rd Online World Championship: http://forum.strateg...d-championship/


#59 The Rainmaker

The Rainmaker

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Lieutenant

Posted 18 January 2014 - 09:35 PM

I think its fun to check out the rankings and I do it myself but I think everybody is getting a little too caught up in this.  If you want to sit with your position fine, if you want to play that's fine too.  The competitiveness of whether you can catch your name on the board is fun.  just being at 600 doesn't get you on the board anymore and that's fine.  I like the challenge of trying to get my name on there.  No offence to the bronze rankings but I hate when I drop in there but hey it happens from time to time.  There are good players up and down the rankings.  Just because you are ranked #1 doesn't make you unbeatable.  I like when I get a shot at the higher ranks than me.  It gives you a great sense of accomplishment when you win.  Hey and when someone lower rated beats me I need it from time to time.  Lets me know not to get too complacent but also this is a fun game.


  • Napoleon 1er likes this

#60 DreamCrusher999

DreamCrusher999

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 19 January 2014 - 04:23 AM

If they don't play, eventually they will fall down cuz' new players will find their way up instead of the one that doesn't play.

I've parked several accounts in the silver league and I hardly play with them and still they are there.

I will play them again if I see they're about to fall off in the silver league which will happen eventually if you don't play anymore.

The silver league has almost got 250 players in it so if you have a rating of 600, it could very well be that your name won't be shown anymore after a time.  

I also think most players here have a second or third account.  There's nothing wrong with that in my eyes.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users