Suggestions for Improving Seasonal Duel Rankings
- 1
- 2
Postări: 50
Vizitat de: 130 users
|
So players have made some suggestions already in the 'Farming' forum, but i wanted to address the farming issue first. The next step is to consider changes to improve the competitiveness, while keeping it enjoyable. For this discussion, again i'd like to keep it very specific. One issue i can see already is the notion of turning the rankings into a tournament. Tournaments are already a 'thing' and if someone wants to host a tourney, full support. I'll even host if that's what players want. I do think this is a great way of determining a champion and bragging rights in a community this size. So don't suggest tournaments please - we can always do that, and there are various ways of randomizing maps or having sets. BACK TO BASICS: A BRIEF discussion on ELO. {And the source of the flaws} So ELO was originally used to rank players in a gaming community (originally chess) that was so large, players could never expect to play a significant percentage of that community, so ladder rankings and tournaments often were poor assessment tools to compare players who had never played each other, or even played a common opponent. See the problem...  {Hint.. this community isn't large enough for ELO to work}ELO is fundamentally flawed for a small gaming community in which basically every one knows each other. In order to do well in AW ELO rankings, you study opponents, specialize in a particular map or strat that plays to your strength, and do other things to give a slight advantage against an opponent you already know (admit it, you probably know most other duelers better than your own aunt). As a result, things like farming become far more tempting ways of boosting elo if you want first place. When there are millions of gamers in the community, you simply can't study them all, so not knowing your opponent has a 'leveling' effect and removes those variables that are introduced when you are familiar with a player, making statistical analysis possible, and this became the start of ELO... a statistical analysis used to rank players. So yes, ELO is flawed, and rank limits aren't the magic bullet. But that doesn't mean there aren't some great suggestions to improve AWs ELO system, which is the point of this thread. Once we have some suggestions, we'll take a look at the list and see if we can't agree on a format that will make the season competitive and fun. I've already seen some workable suggestions, so if it becomes an 'ego' battle over competing suggestions that are all workable, i might do a survey monkey and let the high ranks go with what is most popular. So the topic at hand: What suggestions do you have to make duels more competitive and enjoyable?
----  
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Trophies for dueling is the same for clans competing for seasonal #1. There are many people who farm low ranks all season long and when they have gapped everyone else by 20+ elos, they camp just like how MK would in cws. I feel like personally there should be a rule that prevents that from happening.
---- 
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Agree, and this is an easy solve imo.. allow people to challenge the 'king' and penalize the camper if he refuses... it's a bit easier for duels since i can actually modify elo (i can't edit CW stats). Also, welcome back... i just started this forum today, and saw you weren't on for 6 days... magically you were summoned ♥)
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Let the high ranks be open to duel in game or duel in maps that aren't the same boring EU+ map.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Problem is obvious and you stated it. The game needs more players. Solution ? Bring more new players. Any suggested change that I've seen (limit game to this that the other, final tournament, etc.) would further constrict atherosclerotic artery that is number of played games/active players.
---- No such thing as a good girl, you are just not the right guy. 
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
A dueler messaged me this suggestion, so i'm assuming they would prefer to remain anonymous rather than post, but you know who you are, so i'd like to give credit for this suggestion: Remove the default option to participate in duels, and grant the permission "to duel" to known duelers who abide by the standards of the dueling community. Not going to say much more about it.. i think it's self-explanatory. Like an AW "Fight Club". But it seems an elegant solution to most (all?) of the major flaws.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Yeah, because that would be great if you are a returning player looking to duel and you cant duel because of some fight club shit. This just seems like a stupid idea honestly.
---- hi
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Why couldn't a returning player duel? They would be granted permissions and be part of the dueling community... what's the problem?
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Would mods determine who is a fight club member? I thought you meant only some players could be a part of a duel community.
---- hi
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
The dueling community would decide... it's right in the post. Think of it as a giant 'coalition'. New players don't automatically arrive into your coalition. You have to send an invite.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Honestly, I'm thinking rank limits. Rank 7 to justify a player can enter ranked personal matches. Ps. haven't dueled in 2000 days, so maybe my opinion is worthless
---- [pr] ●HellRaiserX666X: ever try beating your meat with sand paper?
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
And that's good because ? You are not solving the issue for which you made this topic and are going further into limiting and controlling already small community.
---- No such thing as a good girl, you are just not the right guy.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
There's two issues - the size of the community... i can't solve that one and that's not why i made the post. The second issue was the elo farming and related issues, such as creating alts and other anti-competitive behaviours. That's how i got involved. To me, the problem is nearly always what to do when rank 0-5s wander on to the dueling field of play. When i looked at the history of the top duelers, i noticed that in general, most of them aren't farming. You're a good example.. the last time you played a player under R7 was 72 days ago... you've played fewer than 10 people under R10 this season. Fairly solid example that some (not all) duelers can self-regulate. So, for instance, that R5 you played probably wasn't ready to be a dueler... so why even let him on the field? All he's going to do is create animosity and accusations of farming. He's not challenging top rated duelers. However, let's say that R5 is a serious AW player and has potential as a dueler. He can learn those skills from people such as yourself, and once he's ready, then he'd be invited into the community. He still probably wouldn't be a challenge to the top 20 duelers, but he's now in the community and can participate in duels with people he has a chance of defeating. By this time he'd know what elo farming is and not put himself in the position of being an elo feeder, and the top 12 would keep an eye out to make sure the duelers that can't self-regulate don't take advantage. They'd basically be held accountable by fellow duelers. Do you see where this is headed? Once the 'dueling community' has a workable system and is no longer a place where the only way to win is to elo farm, interest in returning may return. It certainly wouldn't get any worse.... With a healthy competitive, antifarming dueling community, it's possible (likely even) that players having left the dueling scene out of frustration/disgust/low standards, etc. are likely to return.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
I just don't think atwar has a big enough community to really implement the right changes, in an ideal world atwar would simply have a match-making based system that you could search for duels, cw's and then a collection of other maps for I suppose a social playlist. Your social rank would be the rank we get from exp and then your ranked rank would be elo-based like currently but would reset after each season, currently we have 2 different types of elo which doesnt make much sense unless one was for social matchmaking to make matchmaking more fair. But we don't have the players for this I think and the players we do have are so against change that we have been running a world map based off of data in 2011.
---- Lest we forget Moja Bosna Ponosna
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
The dueling community? You mean those same Eu+ fangirls whose idea of skill is based on memorising an expansion on the same map they've been playing over and over to the point where little novelty can be brought to life besides the old "nerf x strat, it defeated my PD inf"? The same players who feel afraid to try and explore new maps and options where they could show some versatility and flexibility with their true skills which don't depend that much on the playing field? That would probably scare most newcomers away, taking away some of the attractiveness and thrill of dueling, turning it even more than it already is into an only Eu fagelite playable feature. To me it sounds like some biased conservative absurd EU wanna-be meritocracy, which would simply replace current problems for new ones. As Trystane says, there should be a match making system, based on everyone's current ELO, that's the only real solution to such problem. However I know it's impossible to implement, in which case I'd propose a new sort of restriction, which instead of it being based on your rank should be based on your ELO. Idk how hard or easy it can be to program and implement though.
---- Don't ever look down on someone unless you're helping him up. Don't ever treat someone else the way you wouldn't want others to treat you. We're all people. 
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
1. Its fair not to have a public list of players who lost ELO and how much they ve lost? So all could see that this rule applies the same for all players? 2. The rules applies only for players good enough to win most of the games? Or it applies for all players including for those who didn't succeed to farm (according to this rule)? 3. Rule 1.3 invoked, details only using many accounts to gain ELO. So, its fair to _change_ the rule for facts already happen? Its fair for players who already invest their time in games in order to Show their value? 4. The meaning of ELO its maybe to establish the best player in duel games. Its fair to have a number 1 playing a lot of weaker players, for example, but who doesn't want/refuse to play to number 2 or 3 e.g. in order not to loose his place?
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Response to 1. This is an excellent question... i have been asking myself and a few others in the dueling community the same thing. Generally players who have been subject to mod actions prefer to remain anonymous, and mods have respected this. In cases where the player wants the community to know, a forum has been created. The guidelines are here: https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=41801 However duels / elo are a bit different. Keep in mind, mod action in duels is rare. But when elo is lost, it can have an effect on several other players, and rearrange the rankings, even when only one player is involved, so it does make sense to go public. For now, i have messaged the player involved. I have presumed he wishes to remain anonymous, but if the player agrees, i have no issue publicizing the details. Response to 2. Also a good question, and i was discussing this with another top 12 dueler yesterday in private. What i said to the player was if both players are legitimately dueling, and the 'dominant player' legitimately loses battles (i.e. doesn't purposely lose to make it appear he isn't farming) then it can't really be farming... the less dominant player is able to win occasionally. So if the player doesn't succeed in farming, it can't really be farming, and so i can't see how this breaks any rules. But this is where it gets subjective... how many wins before it becomes farming? 3? 4? 7? In my view, i think 3 is a good guideline, but based on the review of all top 12 players, i went with 4 to minimize my involvement... I think for next season though the community should agree on a 'number of wins per week for the same player' so that we have a solid guideline. Response to 3. Another good question. Generally mods don't want to get involved for exactly this reason. Top duelers work hard to get into the top 12. But if one of those top 12 is farming, then the other 11 have had their 'hard work' compromised. So the goal of any intervention would be to balance the rankings to make it more competitive and more fair. In the recent case, i have acknowledged the hard work of the player in question, and the elo was not reset. It was reduced according to the '4 game win' and as a result, 2 or 3 players still have a good chance to win the season, so their hard work is respected as well. It's not a perfect solution, i know... a systemic flaw in the elo rankings won't have a perfect solution. But it's the best that could be done given the circumstances. Response to 4. This has been proposed as a problem (referred to as 'camping' in the discussion - read the second and third posts of this thread). I think there's a few ways to solve this, and made one suggestion in the third post.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Make season shorter,something like 1 month or 1 and a half month 3 months is just too long for 1 season
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
This is the most likable one I think, there's huge activity within the first month and then it all drops off and you have some racist serb complaining that others didnt play as much as him
---- Lest we forget Moja Bosna Ponosna
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Given recent interest in revamping duels, i'm bumping this thread so players can see what has already been discussed, and why we are at an impasse. Please offer your suggestions. ♥
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Include multiple factors to calculate the duel seasonal ELO. 4 factors: 1. Seasonal ELO 2. Total ELO 3. Rank 4. SP collected at that ELO Currently, only one factor decides the duel seasonal ELO which is the seasonal ELO of both players and that is wrong. Why? Total Elo and Rank should be taken into account, take the following scenario: First Duel: Rank 9 duels Rank 6 (1000 seasonal ELO, 990 total ELO ) and wins it. Second Duel: Rank 9 duels Rank 12 (1000 seasonal ELO, 1300 total ELO ) and wins it. In both duels the Rank 9 gets the same seasonal elo which is not fair. The second duel was way more difficult and challenging. So the elo gained from the first duel should be reduced or kept the same and the elo gained from the second duel should be increased. SP collected from the duel should be taken into account: Take these real deuls as example https://prnt.sc/ZfecydGW2wzy. The opponent captures two cities then boom the duel is over. Is this duel the same as playing for 15 turns 50 turns? It shouldn't be the same. To reduce the dependency on luck and ELO farming the SP collected must be taken into account to make sure that the duel was real. Of course, not all of the 4 factors have the same share of the seasonal ELO. You know better how to calculate it but just an example for clarification: Duel Seasonal ELO 60% Total ELO 20% Rank 10% SP Collected 10%
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
|
Another suggestion is to make the season duration 12 months and winners are the top 15 players as the following: 1st Place Trophy (year) 2nd Place Trophy (year) 3rd Place Trophy (year) 4-15 Top 15 Trophy (year) This can increase the number of participants in duels and reduce the number of crybabies.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
I Agree on Point 1 and 2 and I defenetly disagree on points 3 and 4. For the following reasons. Players with high rank can be players that have played since many years or players that have played thousand of scenarios or casual games, being high rank doesnt imply that you have to put more effort to win the duel. It can mean that, but only in some cases. Also players with high rank can be inactive for years, therefore they can be bad and easier to beat, for expample compared to a new lowrank improving and getting better fast. You can still say that also High elo players can be inactive for time and you would wonder why i agree on second point, but thats easy : total elo can go downer, ranks can't, if one with high elo starts dueling and lose to newbies he will lose elo, but he won't of course go down on ranks, the exact same thing happens in chess btw : once you are master you will always be, even with 1000 elo. About 4th point there is no sense at all. Of course duels with few sp and duel with much sp are different, a world duel is different from a middle east duel what do you expect? A 50k duel is different from a 3k duel that's obvious, doesnt mean that the 50k duel should be more important and should count more seasonal elo then the 3k one. Also "to reduce the dependency on luck" what is this even about? if a player wins 200 duels with few sp maybe he isn't just lucky, maybe he know what he is doing, if he lose half and win half, then not gonna be a problem since he won't be in the top duel list. It may become a problem when the player do any kind of duels only with lowranks repeatedly, or if the player keep doing the exact same duel over and over setting up his duels in an intended way, to beat unsuspecting players. Maybe the only point of this 4th suggestion is to favor those who play long and big duels with thousand troops (like yourself?) So i agree to mix up seasonal elo changings, with a small percentage or whatever of normal elo. While to count ranks and morover sp? Doesn't make any sense to me. Make the season last 12 month is not a great idea to me, since there would be less thropies and less interest from players. While i can agree on making thropies also to the ones in top (from 4-15 the same), can mean something to them and could bring them to duel with more interest. The main solution that is required though, will not be solved by those suggestions, even if some of those may be interesting as i said myself. The main problem we have nowadays, which i mentioned, and the reason for why the "recent interest" made bump this thread again, is the farming point. In fact th 12 month lenght for thropies, wouldnt just make players less stimulated, but also risks to give more credit to people that just farms. The question that arises is whether it is right and correct for a player to choose his single map, his time, his strategy, his rules, his gameplay, always in exactly the same way .... probably the answer is yes , however, if you also include the fact that this player may be first, or in any case in the first places of the seasonal elo rankings, the answer is probably subject to change. (for istance, what prevents anybody to make only duels with the winning setting "take capital" and only play guerrilla warfare and send 2k marines to the other cap? thats just an example of course, it has counters and its totally losable) because it is also right to choose a game mode you prefer, but perhaps use only that one, in the way in which everyone's testimony much people are doing nowadays, is not entirely acceptable, at least morally speaking, morover if that leads one player to win thropies, while anybody else is behaving differently (and correctly?). I agree with some solution offered here and in other threads, like limiting r6 and below from duelling or maybe let them do so, but just affecting the normal elo, not the seasonal one. Or maybe a restriction rule were same settings cant be played twice in a row (even if this one can be easily bypassed). An other suggestion was to make an elo limit (below and above) within which players can duel, instead of a rank limit. Those are all nice solutions to our problem. Though i can understand that it can require an useless effort to change settings and rules again and again, and that some people may not agree this hypotetical new way of dueling or counting seasonal elo without the chance to farm or to troll or anything, because otherwise they won't be where they are. Maybe we can have a survey or something, to see what anybody (at least in competitive) thinks about it. If players and community agrees massively on changes to make duels more fair and avoid farming or shorcut or uncorrect behaviour, maybe the times can be ripe to see those changes. Peace 
---- 
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Rank should be taken into account because in general high ranked players play better. Of course, there are exceptions, but when you want to make something you have to do it generally, it is like if someone says "Humans have two eyes" then you reply "No, no I know a one-eyed man" okay, but in general, humans have two eyes. Anyway, there can be another factor instead of rank, which is the number of duels won or the number of duels played. Also taking SP into account can prevent farming elo like yours where you play 3 turns and then win the game. You say, players who play world duel or 50k duel, such duels take a lot of time like 1-4 hours at least, in 4 hours players who play 1-turn duels (like yourself) can play 30 duels during these 4 hours so it would be fair to include SP to ensure that real duels are given their real value.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Thank you for explaining me how logic works, i really needed that. If you are so smart you will probably understand yourself, without needing me to eplain it a third time, that normal elo is more effective then rank since normal elo can decrease while ranks can't, and it's not even a statistic matter since i know and recall many high ranks players that can be beaten very easily, compared to some players, even a couple of rank below that are instead way better then the others, and of course, BY IMPLICATION they have or will soon have more elo then the first ones. The fact that the 50k duel take 4 hours instead of a half or less has only to do with the mechanics of the settings, and not at all with the skill of the players, unless you want to intend that the ones who plays 50k duels are more skilled then who plays 10k or 3k which is, as well as false, illogical. You are still not providing any logical reason for why sp should be counted in seasonal elo (and why a 50k duel is "real" and a 3k - 1k duel is "not real") , no reason but your anger toward me or anybody that can win elo faster then you. I have to give you credit, you found a perfect way to farm noobs and to win vs unsuspecting players. You calling me farmer is the funniest thing by the way, but I can understand why you are angry, since you have to spend 8 hours to farm your 4 noobs, to take the same amount of elo that is takable in like half hour duelling not only noobs, but high ranks, high elo, high seasonal elo respectable players, like i do, unless you want to mean that well known and good and respectable people like Dominicano, The Panda Jew, Palm (Argentina), Z Master, Kogi, Geronimoo, Lokua, Alpenglow, Niels1280, Konstantin_Bodin, Top1 (some of the people i duel the last 2 weeks) are all the same as all the noobs you have been farmed last month. I can understand your anger, but is not a angry thread, we are trying to make the dueling and the seasonal elo expeirence better for anybody. And if you want to contribuite to this topic, i'll be happy to read.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
In this case, Yacer proposed 4 factors, and then suggested weighting them as follows: Duel Seasonal ELO 60% Total ELO 20% Rank 10% SP Collected 10% Rank and SP are fairly low percentages, so from my perspective, Yacer sees that these shouldn't be weighted much. I do agree with Lev though.. Rank doesn't seem like a factor that would balance things overall. I read Yacer's example, but it's based on the notion that a higher rank is more skilled than a lower rank. This simply isn't my experience. Rank does not equate with skill. There 'might' be a slight advantage if an unskilled low rank lacks upgrades to compete, but i can't imagine there are more than a handful of these players dueling. In the big picture, i think factoring rank into the calculation would simply give an unwarranted advantage based on rank. You'd balance the specific example given (yes in a world of clones, higher ranks would be expected to be more difficult, so then it would make more sense) but i think it would create a greater imbalance overall, by giving an advantage based solely on rank. If i'm missing something Yacer, you're going to have to give me more detail or another example as to why it's a necessary factor. The SP collected example shows a more interesting dynamic. Clearly more skill is involved in longer games in which both players have an opportunity to apply some actual strategy. One of the things i definitely dislike since the competitive community steamrolled over the +1 inf city bonus is that rushing a cap leads to a play style that doesn't involve a ton of skill, and makes for exceptionally quick games that involve no thought or complex strategy. However i think Lev pointed out the problem with using SP. It would lead to players only using high income maps, with high starting funds, further reducing the diversity of strategy and play styles. But i can see the point... perhaps factoring in things like {total cities captured} x {number of turns} would solve the problem. (So a longer, balanced game, in which players captured, lost and recaptured cities would be weighted more than a simple cap rush that ends after 4 turns.) This wouldn't give low income maps a disadvantage.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
So resolving the issue of a player mastering a narrow play style for a specific map using a specific strategy is a challenge. There are a number of solutions to this... and you've mentioned a few. There is a moral element to this problem that won't be overcome... and the players who do this tend to be oblivious as to why it's a problem. Generally, people who have a 'win at all costs' attitude are the players most likely to do this (use exactly same game play using same map, strat, etc. ). Don't get me wrong... these players spend a lot of time practicing and perfecting their game style, and invest a lot into it. This is why in the past, efforts to address this don't get too far. I'm perfectly open to a vote on it, and can set up a poll or survey after it's been discussed a bit more, to see if the community can agree that it needs to be addressed.
----
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Rank matters because dueling a rank 4 or 5 player is NOT like dueling a rank 13 player. No man with good logic disagrees to this. But yes Rank 11 is not different really from Rank 20 in terms of upgrades. So the issue with the rank is about upgrades if the player has all upgrades you get normal elo, if not you get less elo when you win against that player. I do not know at which rank exactly we get all upgrades but by having 648320 SP you can have all upgrades and let us suppose that you get that at Rank 10. Dueling Rank 10 and more gets you better elo Dueling less than Rank 10 less elo and of course, as I mentioned it doesn't have a big share
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
|
Yes as you mentioned, a longer game gives players a better opportunity to prove themselves. So SP can be replaced by the number of turns played to not have the starting funds affecting the elo and the number of duels can be replaced by rank factor as I mentioned. So the 4 factors can also be: 1. Seasonal ELO 2. Total ELO 3. Number of Duels 4. Turns Played at Duel
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
|
- 1
- 2
