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

[armacham01]

Steel, you want the server to calculate a player's map-specific rating from scratch EVERY TIME they join a lobby? This does not seem very practical.

If you want to make a Seton's-specific rating, is the server going to count 1v1 Seton's games, or only 4v4s? How can it calculate your Seton-specific rating for 4v4 games? It's going to have to look back at your history of games. And then it's going to have to look back at the ratings of all the other players who were participating in your games (without knowing the OTHER players' ratings, the server would not be able to calculate a meaningful rating for the player in question). So either the system will have to track every player's map-specific ratings (which is what other people were telling you), OR it will have to recalculate EVERY player's Seton ratings EVERY time ANY player joins a Seton's lobby.

Can I just end my post here, or should I put some insults in?

[Steel_Panther]

Steel, you want the server to calculate a player's map-specific rating from scratch EVERY TIME they join a lobby? This does not seem very practical.

If you want to make a Seton's-specific rating, is the server going to count 1v1 Seton's games, or only 4v4s? How can it calculate your Seton-specific rating for 4v4 games? It's going to have to look back at your history of games. And then it's going to have to look back at the ratings of all the other players who were participating in your games (without knowing the OTHER players' ratings, the server would not be able to calculate a meaningful rating for the player in question). So either the system will have to track every player's map-specific ratings (which is what other people were telling you),

Can I just end my post here, or should I put some insults in?

I encourage you to read my last post.

I have literally never seen anyone play a ranked, setons 1v1 that was not a ladder match (which is a separate rating, just fyi!).

I don't think that calculating UP TO TWO ratings after a game, and storing a handful of numbers for each player, would use a whole ton of additional computing power or storage space.

OR it will have to recalculate EVERY player's Seton ratings EVERY time ANY player joins a Seton's lobby.

Lol, sure...is that what it does with global rating?

That will be all,

Thanks

[biass]

Yo, before you continue to ask everyone to "read" better, could you write better? I've gone over this drivel of a thread about 5 times now and you quite clearly straight up miss or believe a point is the opposite of what it says because of indirect wording mutiple times. Ranting in capitals like a boomer isn't a good look either.

This is what I think you're trying to say for the benefit of the other people here.
You want:

- to supplement the global rating in the lobby with an additonal "map rating"
- only for specifically, the most common maps to reduce server load (despite you saying you don't care about gap/crater (despite that being required to solve the original issue)
- if the map hosted isn't one of those maps, display N/A instead

In my opinion:
Will it make hosting lobbies easier to balance the effort needed to create this system? No.
Will people circumvent or otherwise abuse this system? Yes, immediately.
Does it cover enough of the population to solve the issue? Very much no.

Clarify if I'm wrong on the assumptions? Without the "rEaD ThE PosT" garbage if possible.

You've already annoyed the 2 or so people who would likely create your system but if you want to attempt to convince them again, try using dot points.

[Louvegarde]

Is that an insurmountable difficulty? I don't think so

I don't think that [...] would use a whole ton of additional computing power or storage space.

Only if a complete moron is designing it

Only a moron coder would do that

I can't wait to see your pull requests for faf-db and faf-java-api. I'm curious about how you're going to solve that one.

As brutus told you, the point of Trueskill is to evaluate the skill of the player with accuracy, and system-wise it would be impossible to make "a new rating for the 20-30 popular versions of gap" for practical reasons:
- Nothing in the current system or database links those "different" identical maps together, so someone would have to link them manually
- Someone unsatisfied with their current "astro rating" (or whatever map and the rating he's associated with to it) would just reupload a new replica of it and host it so that his rating appears reset, which would make the problem even worse as now we have to eliminate new replicas and argue with the creators "but i changed a tree " etc
- People who link those maps have to check constantly for new "editions" of those maps to link them, not mentioning that this means implementing a whole new system for it
- You also have to argue how similar two maps have to be to share their rating. A lot of astro maps aren't exactly astro, but still kinda are astro. How do you decide what makes the cut? And the moment you decide it, some people will exploit that "minimum difference threshold" to reset their rating as explained above.

In theory, we could probably make an insane database which stores a map-specific rating for each player (or maybe just a play count per map), even though that's some huge amount of work.
But in practical terms, it's absolutely unthinkable of and definitely impossible to not get horribly wrong. It will be complicated, messy, unreadable, unusable - useless.
And even if you managed to do it with some magic wand (that we definitely don't have),

If you want to make a Seton's-specific rating, is the server going to count 1v1 Seton's games, or only 4v4s?

yeah. The skill of a player in a 4v4 configuration on setons might not be the same depending on their position, or depending on the number of players. Remember: Trueskill is not a candy system that gives point to good bois and remove points to bad players. It's a system made to pinpoint a player's exact skill in a specific situation, formalized by two numbers (one for the skill level, another for the accuracy and consistency of that level). If there's e.g. more difference between air seton and front seton than between air seton and air canis, separating the rating per map would be less efficient and accurate than separating it per spot (but don't worry, separating it per spot would also be kinda garbage design for another set of reasons)

Also

Clarify if I'm wrong on the assumptions? Without the "rEaD ThE PosT" garbage if possible.

I agree with biass that this thread looks more like a mindless rant than anything else. You should stop antagonizing everyone who either disagrees with you or tries to understand your idea, unless you plan on doing it all by yourself.
so maybe you should chill for a bit

[Steel_Panther]

you quite clearly straight up miss or believe a point is the opposite of what it says because of indirect wording mutiple times.

Can you tell me what I misinterpreted other people saying?

I admit I am not perfect, and even with a 170 LSAT perhaps my reading comprehension and communication skills are garbage, I dunno.

only for specifically, the most common maps to reduce server load (despite you saying you don't care about gap/crater (despite that being required to solve the original issue)

We apparently disagree on what the issue is. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, that I think the issue is: people having incorrect ratings on the non-gap/crater maps. Maybe putting it in caps, or writing in paragraphs, means I actually am saying the opposite, I guess.

It would completely solve that problem no matter how much the gap/crater noobs try to abuse it, because it doesn't change their rating on the single setons map that everyone plays (for example). If gap maps are excluded from the map-rating, then their is no way for them to abuse the noob maps by making more versions. They are in the exact same spot they are right now: with only a global rating. And even if the map-rating was extended to them, I would say it couldn't really be abused because there still is global rating, which everyone playing those noob maps would naturally weigh 100% on any tweaked map, rather than a map specific rating when barely anyone has any games on it anyway.

So, I was assuming that people would make logical decisions about how much to weigh information, or a lack thereof. This is why I don't predict the people playing the standard team game maps will create tons of tweaked versions to try to change their ostensible map rating. The people they play with aren't complete morons, and will know to weigh their global rating 100% in that situation. Maybe you think differently about the people that play this game, but I'm at least willing to assume they have some common sense.

As brutus told you, the point of Trueskill is to evaluate the skill of the player with accuracy, and system-wise it would be impossible to make "a new rating for the 20-30 popular versions of gap" for practical reasons:
- Nothing in the current system or database links those "different" identical maps together, so someone would have to link them manually

Louvregard why would any maps need to be linked together? They are separate, and each would have an individual rating. And just how much data would it take to store additional ratings or play counts per map? Can you tell me where I said we should have a single map rating for "the 20-30 popular versions of gap"?

Maybe I need to list the maps that would get a specific, individual, rating: Setons, Canis, Wonder, Wonder open, Miracle, Morning Prayer, Badlands, Goodlands, Hilly....that's all I can even think of off the top of my head, though people could suggest others.

The only linking of maps I can think of would be a map to its "adaptive" counterpart version. Even then I don't know if that would be necessary.

I never ever said it needed to be done, even if it might be helpful. Did I say that somewhere?

The whole point here is to try to provide at least some information, rather than none. And because people are not idiots, they will know if that extra information that is provided can be ignored.

yeah. The skill of a player in a 4v4 configuration on setons might not be the same depending on their position, or depending on the number of players.

Again, I never said we need to take that into account. Hell, global rating doesn't. Are people complaining about that? I figure since even those matches are an infinitesimal minority of ranked matches, why would you bother to even try? And if that isn't difficult, it could have been done for global long ago. I simply assumed a map rating would be done the same way as global for simplicity.

[biass]

Can you tell me what I misinterpreted other people saying?

You claim brutus is wrong in saying that they need to add an extra rating per map, even though that's essentially what you want, likely because you fail to clarify that you only want a few specific maps to have the special rating. for a single quick example.

and even with a 170 LSAT my reading comprehension and communication skills are garbage

If you're still in that demographic whom attempt to flex on people with an arbitrary school grade, I would say that they are, yeah.

that I think the issue is: people having incorrect ratings on the non-gap/crater maps. Maybe putting it in caps, or writing in paragraphs, means I actually am saying the opposite, I guess.

Pained sarcasm aside, i think the issue is a lot more wide spread for just gap players -> wonder, I think to and from setons, and canis etc, are issues too. There isn't really a reason to limit such a system if hypothetically, the maps were not coming out with new versions every 2 weeks.

on the single setons map that everyone plays

I think that this system would prompt people to find an "unranked" map to avoid this rating (or to smurf). Just being left with a global rating 99.99% of the time just doesn't justify the dev time.

Maybe you think differently about the people that play this game, but I'm at least willing to assume they have some common sense.

I think that most people in this community care way too much about rating points, and will do some extremely rodentlike things to keep them. so yeah we do differ.

[Morax]

If folks REALLY want to, I can make an offical poll to look into how the community wants to treat this situation.

HOWEVER, I don't think it will result in any good, and since it revolves around mostly casual players who don't pay attention to our politics, a minimum number of votes (several hundred or more) will be mandatory.

[cajuero]

OMG i cant believe ppl are actualy talking about baning a map because other ppl play it.

If u dont like the map then dont play it. If its not astro crates it will be any other map and if u dont let ppl play they will just play another game.

FAF comunity is already too small for ppl trying to chose what other ppl will play or not. This is just ridiculous.

[HurricanKai]

I understand that people want to improve map diversity, but this just does not make sense.
The entire point of having an open lobby like FAF has is to allow anyone to play whatever they want, with any mods, any ai, any player, and, of course, any map!

When reasoning about banning any map, any mod, or a player, it only makes sense to argue that it directly hurts players.
This is not true for the crater maps. Of course it could be argued that it hurts the discoverabilty of other maps, but then Craters doesn't have to be banned, it has to be limited.
And I don't see Craters flooding the vault?
When looking at the vault right now, all I see is other maps, I don't even see a single crater-like map (28/01/2020 21:32)

Now, when looking at the Open Games screen, yes, I see some Craters, but,
a) they are not that many, certainly not hurting discoverability badly
b) the fact that there are quite some crater games every day proves that crater is a map liked by lots. It doesn't make sense to ban a map because lots like it.

Also, to an extend setons clutch is also like craters, do we delete Setons too?
I dislike Gentelman's Reef, can we delete that please?

I've not heard one good argument for *deleting* Craters yet, I've just heard arguments why one might dislike it / not recommend it to (new) players.

Craters deletion would certainly hurt the Playerbase, and would be "the loudest one wins" which certainly isn't a good way to take administrative actions.
This is an open community, and while It needs moderators and admins, and I have deepest respect for them, I do not understand how this case calls for administrative action.

(Also, first post hooray)

[Morax]

After a lot of debate, I think it a couple rule additions may be in the works that disallow astro to exist in 300+ forms. If a really, big improvement is made, it could be allowed, though.

I agree folks should be able to play what they want, however, there is equally (or more) people that dislike seeing the vault flooded with redundant content.

A post with new rules and opinions will be shared once I get the language correct for each statement.