[Discus] Asto Craters Ban? Ban players on the craters?

[Morax]

We already tried this and it go too complicated, too quick for anyone to own it:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15554&p=157616#p157616

FaF going in circles per usual...

[Steel_Panther]

And this shouldn't be too difficult to implement.

i'm curious how you would implement it. Would you give specific rating for each map ? (so you have several thousand possible rating) and in this case if someone get high rating on thermo then join a "the pass" for the first time he won't be rated properly.

Or you want to group the rating of all gap together ? How do you achieve this ? by adding a tag on maps ? it would then require to review maps to be able to add the labels to the new one. And what are your groups of maps ? gap and dual gap together ? the pass and thermo together ? or astro craters likes + gaps likes + thermo likes are grouped together for a "turtle map rating" ?


I can go even more on this, this is far more difficult to implement than at first thought. The closest idea to something achievable was the trueskill 2 integration by sheeo. But i've no idea if it would fix the issue entirely, and the workload it would require.

Well, you take the same formula used for global, but only apply it for the specific map that is hosted. Show the estimated global rating, and number of games, for that specific map. Yes I know there are dozens of iterations of gap, etc, but that shouldn't matter too much. Generally people who are playing [gap/crater} all the time are also playing the same version anyway, so that doesn't matter much at all. Sure you could combine them all together I suppose, but the point is to know if they have a decent rating on THE OTHER MAPS. And there aren't dozens of iterations of the mainstream team games, so that doesn't matter.

At the very least, this gives you some very valuable information about how many times someone has played the map and their estimated rating. Having some additional information CANNOT POSSIBLY be WORSE than ONLY the global rating, which is obviously off by about 1k in some instances.

You literally only need to take the global rating, and recalculate it using only the hosted map. Is that actually very difficult?

[Steel_Panther]

We already tried this and it go too complicated, too quick for anyone to own it:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15554&p=157616#p157616

FaF going in circles per usual...

Without reading the whole thread after cookienoob's post...my suggestion doesn't have to be anywhere near as complicated to be still very, very helpful. It is something added on top of the global rating, not an attempt to rebalance the global rating. Wouldn't you like to know if someone joining your game with a 1500 rating and 1300 games has: 11 games and a 700 estimated rank on [Canis, or whatever map], or 100 games on that map and 1600 rating estimated? You might guess they have gotten decent at some other map, possibly another team game map, but that's highly unlikely given how few games they have on a very popular standard team game map...so you can maybe expect them to play at about 1k. I think that's a whole lot better than, "well, apparently 1500, let's see how this goes, because I'm not going to waste time looking through every person's match history, which might not be very illustrative anyway if you don't feel like being extraordinarily thorough."

[keyser]

We already tried this and it go too complicated, too quick for anyone to own it:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15554&p=157616#p157616

FaF going in circles per usual...

Without reading the whole thread after cookienoob's post...my suggestion doesn't have to be anywhere near as complicated to be still very, very helpful. It is something added on top of the global rating, not an attempt to rebalance the global rating. Wouldn't you like to know if someone joining your game with a 1500 rating and 1300 games has: 11 games and a 700 estimated rank on [Canis, or whatever map], or 100 games on that map and 1600 rating estimated? You might guess they have gotten decent at some other map, possibly another team game map, but that's highly unlikely given how few games they have on a very popular standard team game map...so you can maybe expect them to play at about 1k. I think that's a whole lot better than, "well, apparently 1500, let's see how this goes, because I'm not going to waste time looking through every person's match history, which might not be very illustrative anyway if you don't feel like being extraordinarily thorough."

so you still use the global rating ? So that mean that you will be balancing the game with the map rating and the global rating ? Honestly there is plenty of flaws (i already enumerated some in my last post) would be better to wait for trueskill #2 that does take into account the map into his calculation. In the end you have only 1 rating which may variate depending on the map you are on. And you don't show the rating, so that people don't complain that their rating changed when the map changed.

[Steel_Panther]

so you still use the global rating ? So that mean that you will be balancing the game with the map rating and the global rating ? Honestly there is plenty of flaws (i already enumerated some in my last post) would be better to wait for trueskill #2 that does take into account the map into his calculation. In the end you have only 1 rating which may variate depending on the map you are on. And you don't show the rating, so that people don't complain that their rating changed when the map changed.

Allow me to copy and paste my initial comment: "I think one of the biggest things we could do to help is just have an additional ranking. We have ladder, global, and all we need to add is a map specific rating. If they are all displayed instead of just global, you won't be surprised when the 1200 crater player plays like a 400 ladder player on a standard team game map."

So we still see, (and use for balancing purposes as I also said was probably the best option), global rating. The map rating and number of games are just additional columns displayed in the game lobby. This is just an easy way to provide useful information to not have to look up if someone has any experience on setons or standard team game maps.

Maybe this analogy will only work for Americans, but it's like in baseball being able to know a batter's average versus left handed and right handed pitchers.

I'm not saying this is definitely the best system, but it would be helpful and ought to be easy to do, and doesn't require any debate whatsoever about how we weigh or calculate global ratings. How long would we have to wait for this trueskill #2?

So hopefully what I initially said is now clear enough.

[LabPunk]

Personally I think it would be nice if there were maps on which you could just attain a certain maximum score.
Like Astro ->> 400 max, dual gap ->> 600 max, gap ->> 1000 max.
But I suspect this would be difficult to implement, and would meet a lot of resistance from CERTAIN members of the community.

[armacham01]

LabPunk, that would also ruin people's ability to balance astro and gap games. I'm sure there are differences on Astro between someone rated 400, 900, 1300, and 1700. But you would cap it all at 400 because you don't respect those players.

You might not think that matters, if all you care about is being able to balance Wonder games and Seton's games.

But what you are talking about is punishing or at least disadvantaging people for playing astro/gap. If it is impossible to balance the games with higher-rated players, maybe the higher-rated players move on to "better" maps and the community improves. But maybe they just feel like they're being shit on, and they leave, and that would NOT be an improvement.

We should not be telling people how they need to play the game or trying to put up roadblocks to make it harder for people to play the game the way they want to.

Encouraging people to play a different way, for example: the ladder leagues, team matchmaker, curated maps in the vault, etc. is very different from screwing up someone's rating because you think they're playing the wrong maps.

[biass]

Map specific crap like this is and was always very easy to circumvent.

Please understand how the vault works and try again.
People can just upload a new map and have their global rating show instead of a "gap rating" or have a 0 map specific rating.
The vault police will always be way too late to correct the new arrival, if you can even motivate a group of people to do this job in the first place (with the new vault LUL)

TMM is the solution in my opinion, making something even easier to do than joining a lobby. (hopefully)
Until then, make better teamgame maps.

[Steel_Panther]

Map specific crap like this is and was always very easy to circumvent.

Please understand how the vault works and try again.
People can just upload a new map and have their global rating show instead of a "gap rating" or have a 0 map specific rating.
The vault police will always be way too late to correct the new arrival, if you can even motivate a group of people to do this job in the first place (with the new vault LUL)

TMM is the solution in my opinion, making something even easier to do than joining a lobby. (hopefully)
Until then, make better teamgame maps.

Not really, because the people complaining about inaccurate global ratings aren't the ones that play one of the 10x10^1000 iterations of gap. E.g. setons: there is one version. No one is going to make a new version just so that their map rating will be reduced. It is the more experienced players that want to know if others have ever played the popular team game maps, not the semi-noobs hoping to troll ultra-noobs by reducing their apparent rating and crushing them. The incentives for the people who matter in this consideration are the exact opposite of what you are saying.

[biass]

Not really, because the people complaining about inaccurate global ratings aren't the ones that play one of the 10x10^1000 iterations of gap.

They complain too, see: shuffledummy, suzuji, etc

E.g. setons: there is one version.

There are millions of versions of setons that do everything from moving the 1v1 spawn to rock, balancing the reclaim and having it go four ways instead of two.

No one is going to make a new version just so that their map rating will be reduced.

You underestimate how petty this community can be.

I don't consider a solution that works for whatever you deem as experienced (1500? 2k?) only as a viable one. The problem affects every player on every level, i could even make the case that due to the lower player count at higher levels, it affects more experienced players LESS because they/we know more or less everyone who played by name.

You don't think people will make a reupload of a map to essentially smurf just like I didn't think anyone would crash game lobbies for hours on end with an exploit unless they got a rating reduction, it will happen and I would put money on it too. Leaving the easiest of loop holes open because "haha no one will do that" is why we have this issue in the first place.