A effort to curb cheating.

[:chilledsake:SI]

Note: This is chilledsake from Banff. I am a gold account, but for some reason, my name doesn't work on here.
==============================================
Alright, here's my ramble. It might have been done before, it might not... I'm not going to take the time to look back through 1200 posts to find it.

1. No less than ten (10) units on the battlefield at the start of the game.

Reasoning: a) At least make it time consuming to cheat. I've witnessed many players (golds even) playing grays that have a cleric and a lightning ward. Free win, total time alotted 20 seconds, repeat. b) It'd be insane not to have the maximum amount of guys

2. One (1) player cannot play another player from the same IP more than four (4) times in a row.

Reasoning: Isn't four times in a row a little overkill in the first place? "from the same IP" will allow the server to distinguish between different names.


My reason for this: I'm sick and tired of seeing mediocre players ranked in the top 50 because of their low ball tactics. Earn your ranking, earn your respect.

[Navarre]

We've met in the Arena ( my grey account -I just went gold )
You gave me credit for good gameplay and I honourably surrendered after a heated battle. It should always be about giving your best, otherwise what's the use of playing.

[Ahab]

Welll... I like to play the same guy repeatedly, sooo... I disagree with the second suggestion.

Also, suppose you are playing a bunch of greys and you want a challenge. I myself have done this just to toughen me up and make it more even.

Here's what would stop cheating:

A decent rating scheme whereby you gain points by defeating players better than yourself, just like the US Chess Rating scheme.

What do you think?

[Atomsk]

but what about the people who already have a high ranking? it would be very tough to find someone that would get your ranking up wouldn't it? and what if a grey challenges you but you don't want to use all 10 of your units in order to bring about a challenge?

[:chilledsake:SI]

Well... you have to look at the pros and cons.

Atomsk, you're highly ranked and I would suspect that you've played a few good players in your day. Would you rather play a gray with 10 guys... or would you rather keep the rank that I'm sure you've earned from a cheater that plays a guy with an LW and a cleric all the time??

[Atomsk]

ah, touche. just so you know i highly, HIGHLY, disagree with "free kills" (ex. only playing with a cleric)

[Ahab]

In chess, your ranking gets to a certain level and you maintain that level by playing guys at the same level.

Now, say I'm a 1600. If I play a 1400 and win, I still get about 12 points or so, so I go to say, 1612; the 1400 guy loses maybe 2 points tops. But if the 1400 guy wins, he gets like 32 points, and I lose about 32 points. That's simply how it works.

The top-rated players only stand to lose points by playing the lowest-rated players, but, hey, they should always win anyway, right?

It works very, very well, and all those cheep wins become meaningless.

I find the current ranking scheme worse than nothing, because at least if we had nothing, cheep win ppl would stop bragging about their ranking. It detracts from the game, IMHO.

Ahab

[:chilledsake:SI]

I LOVE the idea of the Chess Rankings...

Our rankings, while better than nothing, are so imbalanced. The Chess system would fix that perfectly.

What it is going to come do to..... The amount of time and energy it takes to code.

[:chilledsake:SI]

bump bump bump

[Drunken Dragon]

Ahab, I am in totaly agreement

Unfortunatly seed cant seem to see the merits of a chess like ranking system. He hates the idea of people rejecting opponents because they had a low ranking... of course people tend to do that pretty often now anyway... I keep my rankings private because I think the system is so lame, and often people refuse to play me because of it.

[silentfish]

so what if they are cheating to get a high ranking. Let them. it shouldnt matter what they do, only that your having fun :)

Silentfish
Non-cheater
#9 in GL

[canopus]

SilentKill sez-
So what if they are cheating...

Cheating is bad, but I agree with you here, it will come out.


But cheating is just one of the problems with the rankings however.

The other is that it discourages top ranked players to fight each other (except in clans I know) , which you would have to agree are going to be the most challenging battles.

If the #1 and #2 players on any server were to fight a 20 game tournament, one or probably both would not be ranked in the top 10 once they got done.

Is this at all what you want to encourage???

[:chilledsake:SI]

It's pretty evident that something needs to be done with the rankings. I think this is something that would be worthwhile to keep interest in this game.

canopus makes a great point. I know for a fact that many of the highly ranked Banff players do not want to play other golds for that very reason. Which is understandable on one hand, but cowardly on another.

PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE RANKINGS. Some kind of improvement is better than no kind of improvement.

[nads]

NASCAR

Do it like nascar. So many rednecks can't be wrong. I ummm, don't know how they do it in nascar for sure, but I like nascar so I figured I'd throw it in.

[AzN_GuY]

I think seed has confirmed a "no" on the rankings changing... but the discussion is worthwhile all the same.

[:chilledsake:SI]

Well, is there a reason for it? Discussion really does no good if it is just going to be vetoed by the president regardless.

Does he or anyone else not see what the rankings are doing to the game? Good players are not playing good players because of it. That, in turn, discourages not-as-skilled players or gray players because they lose all the time and encourages cheating at the same time. That, in turn, generates less money for your cause and less people interested in the game.

The reason why I bring this up is because there is no competition between the top players of the game. I'm sick of pounding on grays and newbies to try to "follow suit" with the others to maintain my ranking... and I'm sure many feel the same.

[nads]

I caught Bills online in the banff lobby one night and asked him about rankings. Now I can't quote him word for word, but I can paraphrase his response. He said the rankings system will never be automated due to compatibaly and server use issues between database software and flash. This part was totally clear, he did use the word never, I specifically remember this. The part that is still unknown is if they would ever rewrite the rankings script. Now, just as a long shot here, I'll venture a guess and say they won't, for the same reason Bills gave to the no automated rankings system. In order to track the people you played, and their rankings, it would require linking the flash and database software, which is the reason he used the word never when referring to automated rankings... But, as with all things, changes happen, and usually after I open my mouth. Fate has a way of making me look stupid, but I give him plenty of chances. Anyways, my continued totally nonfactual opinion is no changes in the rankings will happen until/unless there is a change in the computer world, and someone develops a database program to work well with flash, and they get bigger servers to process the new load of automated ranking.

[:chilledsake:SI]

Automated rankings would be nice, but should be not a priority. I realize there are coding/computing/syncronizing problems when it deals with rankings...

I dont mean to sound like a broken record here.... but the problem isn't with the compatibiliy of the flash and the server... it is the formula of the rankings.

From my limited knowledge of coding, I came up with this assumption. As with all assumptions, they could be wrong. I think all the ranking system is a bunch of variables organized to compute an output. The variables will be wins, losses, and draws as I wouldn't think there would be another other inputs for it. Change the variables around into a new formula and voila! A new and improved ranking system.

That's my optimistic point of view on it. I'd REALLY like to know if wrong.

[xyxaxyz2]

The argument that good players wouldn't play bad because it would hurt their rating if they lost doesn't make sense. If they have a lower ranking they are easier to beat. In a good rating system, it is just as advantagous to increase rating though playing skilled players as through playing not so skilled players.

[:chilledsake:SI]

I dont think you got the jist of that. Beating a lower ranking means less points on your ranking.

[Ahab]

Well, then, I guess we just live with it (i.e., ignore the current ranking scheme).

Tournaments will have to be used to determine who is the 'best of the best'.

eh, whatever...

[xyxaxyz2]

I do understand that beating lower rankings gives you less points. But it is easier, and it should be easier to the exact extent of the difficulty of the opponent. So beating one person with 100 points should be 10 times less likely than beating one with 10 points. So fighting weak players is no more helpful in the long run than fighting strong players.

[canopus]

The point is that in the system we have now I get as much credit beating a first time grey as I get for beating xerent or RoR.

There may not be a way around this at this time, but it makes the stats less meaningful.

-canopus:rolleyes: