Problems with shared and smurf accounts, and rating inaccuracies (Title was "What?")

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 minutes ago, Stan` said:

It's possible @Dunedan actually proposed to do it iirc but I thought that would cause a public outcry.

Hahaha yeah I can imagine.

 

If we give them an eternal table?

I mean a historical table?

With the all-time leader and stuff like in football/soccer.

[Yekaterina]

@Grapjas look at yourself: you just joined the thread and started giving random, irrelevant remarks, without offering any helpful information regarding vinme and felixix. We we all talking about what happened between vinme and felixix. So who is off-topic here? You are the one who first steered the conversation away from vinme to completely irrelevant things. So it seems like you are the one trying to attract attention. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

You are the one steering the conversation. We were talking about vinme and felixix but you suddenly joined and accused me, rm -rf, snake of needing mental help. Then you steered the conversation off-topic. 

You are exaggerating and overestimating what he said, no one talked about mental or professional help, it is normal that at your age you are immature.

 

The new generations including mine are still to some extent children.

 

That is due to the great infantilization of society.

[Yekaterina]

4 minutes ago, borg- said:

We would have a current table, clean of inactives and part of the smurfs, it could also encourage high level players like feldfeld and valih to come back to the game.

we can start from everyone being 1200, then climb up all again. That would be fair.

Although one should include 2v2 4v4 3v3 in because most games take this format. 

[borg-]

Maybe I expressed badly. General reset, all back to 1200. Yes, I think it would be interesting to include 4v4 games as well, although that is perhaps something for another discussion.

@Stan`could this bring some sort of performance benefit to the lobby?

[Atrik]

Maybe displaying the sum of the ratings of a team would be good for this then. Not sure, though, that 1400 average out a 1000 and a 1800. For example we all know a 1800 can take off 4 or more 1000, so how you calculate team ratings?

[Lion.Kanzen]

https://www.ageofempires.com/stats/ageiide/

It would be nice to have a leaderboard that is hosted on a website.

[Grapjas]

Maybe teamgames should exchange less points than a 1v1 when rated. Making 1v1 still a priority to efficiently climb the ladder. If rated teamgames are wanted that is.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Grapjas

[Lion.Kanzen]

Just now, Atrik said:

Maybe displaying the sum of the ratings of a team would be good for this then. Not sure, though, that 1400 average out a 1000 and a 1800. For example we all know a 1800 can take off 4 or more 1000, so how you calculate team ratings?

https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/plans-for-2v2-ranked/197674

https://www.rankedftw.com/stats/leagues/random-4v4/#v=2&r=-2&sx=a

https://thunderpick.io/blog/starcraft-2-ranking-system

 

Maybe this will help.

[Yekaterina]

I think star diagrams with criteria for each player are more useful than just a single number. Some people can be really good at one thing  and weak at others. Such diagrams will reflect people's strengths, weaknesses and where to improve on:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9uFou63ufEE/TTdLVWUSQxI/AAAAAAAAAMU/sTqtb9N67cE/s1600/star-diagram4.jpg

Some criteria that we can put in there are:

• Average KD
• Average kills per game
• Average population count at 11:00
• Average resource gathering rate  (count/s)

 

For each player's profile, we can add

• time of account creation
• total number of units killed
• total games played of any kind

 

[Gurken Khan]

2 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

It would be nice to have seasons just like E-sports and sports like Football (soccer).

I still like the idea of a more Tennis-like approach, meaning that the results from within a year count; I don't really see a reason for "seasons".

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

15 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

I still like the idea of a more Tennis-like approach, meaning that the results from within a year count; I don't really see a reason for "seasons".

Well, for now a "season" could just be the lifespan of an alpha.

[Lion.Kanzen]

28 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

I still like the idea of a more Tennis-like approach, meaning that the results from within a year count; I don't really see a reason for "seasons".

It's not the same in soccer with one year. They are allowed a reduced time for preseason.

 

Even in the middle of league and cups as well as tournaments.

 

We could even have a world cup every 4 years.

 

But it would be a continental world cup.

[Gurken Khan]

@Lion.Kanzen What? I have no idea what you want to tell me with preseason, cups and tournaments.

Similarly, I don't know why we should have world cups only every 4 years, or why that would be continental cups.

In case I didn't make myself clear with the tennis-like approach: there are no seasons, but every month the results from the previous 12 months are taken into account; so you have no point where the table is reset to zero, in January or July or whenever.

[Lion.Kanzen]

9 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

@Lion.Kanzen What? I have no idea what you want to tell me with preseason, cups and tournaments.

Similarly, I don't know why we should have world cups only every 4 years, or why that would be continental cups.

In case I didn't make myself clear with the tennis-like approach: there are no seasons, but every month the results from the previous 12 months are taken into account; so you have no point where the table is reset to zero, in January or July or whenever.

The pre-season would be a break. No tournaments or competitions. It's like in certain games that give you 7 days at the end of the season.

A world cup sounds like fun.

 

Just to know where the players are from or what geographic area.

 

It would be better to reset the table every year.

 

And keep a separate leaderboard with less fame.

[alre]

9 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

A world cup sounds like fun.

cool idea, sounds like fun, but I don't know how many teams we could make.

also smurf tampering would possibly be an issue.

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 minutes ago, alre said:

cool idea, sounds like fun, but I don't know how many teams we could make.

 

That will be decided later, it would have to be investigated.

 

E-sports is the most popular of competitive games however it is not the most played in an RTS.

 

The most played is the campaign mode, mostly casual based, except for speed runners.

 

But the most popular in terms of pro players is the competitive mode.

 

I suggested this some time ago and it was not well received at the time by the developers of the time. Since developers do not know that the public is renewed, it is something that in mass media, marketing and advertising is known (that's where my strengths as a professional are).

 

It would be good a clan tournament.

 

[vinme]

On 16/05/2023 at 3:39 PM, Yekaterina said:

Wrong. This person using Felix might not have access to the berhudar account.

not wrong, completely true, you need to focus on utility as the qualitative metric for the legitimacy of a definition.
he literally played with defcon 2 min later, and defcon said berhudar was mad at me.
you take the definitions literally, intead of considering intent or utility and therefore twist reality. 
for example: "if account is shared, then none of the users of the account can be directly linked to the accounts name." 
Yes im sure he could've shared his accounts passwords, but its clear as day, when you are playing berhudar, vs somebody else, as theyd make mistakes he wouldnt, and ive never played him in rated 1v1 that i recall, when it wasnt the original berhudar.
There are very few players that are 2000+ in skill right now, that one could count on one hand, 2 of them are afk(feld and vali), borg and i dont do smurfs/alts its impossible to hide identity pretty much.
 
Its obvious, MOST of the time when that account is being used, its berhudar, not someone else using his account.
If he had allowed someone else to play on those accounts, rated, for any reasonable amount of times, hed never get 2200 and likely not even 2000 as the other player would lose too much points.
Honestly your whole argument is a non starter as far as im concerned and comes off more as a desprate legal defense obsessing over misintrepretation of semantics to fit the agenda and obsession over minute technicalities than a genuine opinion.
Clearly he cares about points more than i do, as an example i dont play anyone below 1800 rated, while he does.

[vinme]

On 16/05/2023 at 3:00 PM, rm -rf said:

2200 is just a number. Try to draw the rating distribution and you will see that it looks like everything except the Gaussian it should be.

We can discuss its theoretical benefits but a basic and quick check of all players rated between 1500 and 1700 cancel all of them.

Right now they are so many exceptions in ratings that you cannot find any threshold for beginner/med/pro/legends.

It's pure non sens to give any number when joining TG (And we can also debate about any balance based on 1vs1 ratings ?? they are just fully different)

 

My main problem is not really its inaccuracy if we have all considered 0AD as just a good and fun game.

But the sad reality is that it amplifies/justifies the EGO mess as we see everywhere in the forum

A false but even a good rating system shouldn't allow so much venom.

(for instance see all smurf discussions which should have ended in a day if we have rather cared about politeness and privacy).

 

Again felixix is active top3 by skills whatever the ratings.

 

 

I could care less about the initial plan or intention for the rating system of 0ad, trying to point out the dichotomy between it and the current state of the ratings is utterly irrelevant.
"cancels all of them"? i dont know what that means but i can say there is a huge difference in skill of an average 1500 and an average 1700.
I can, and have, as many others have also ,foudn the "threshold" for beginner, med, pro.
depends on what the goal of the categorizations is, but id say in terms of compettetive play, 1300-1500 is beginner, 1500-1800 is mid, and 1800+ is pro. those 3 leagues are significantly different in performance.
I find it imperative to ask ratings before allowing people to play in a tg im hosting(if i have options), i do make exceptions but when i do purely out of despration or indiffernece, i find i regret it every time. Its very useful to separate people on 1300 level, its too unpredictable for balancing purposes, to let lower than 1300s play, game is usually one sided, they cant comprehend mere basics, it is most of the time bothersome.
Tgs and 1v1s are almost exactly the same, in performance demand, a good 1v1 player will always be a good tg player, and vice versa. we currently balance tgs based on ratings ALWAYS, everybody does it, it is the only way, there is no other way to balance whatsoever,what you are saying, its just blatantly false.

"my main problem is not really its innacuracy if we have all considered 0ad as just a good and fun game." ? what does this mean? 
The innacuracy of the rating system justifies and amplifies the EGO mess? i think removing it causes more of an ego mess, than ppl arguing "im real 1800, you are not real 1800" etc. complete ambiguity of ranking onyl causes noobs to think they are remotely in the same league as good players, as far as im concerned thats the primary driving factor of hostility against the rating system, or atttempts to strawman its legitimacy, try to discredit it.
I dont think any rating system will solve EGO mess, its just human nature.
Yeah i dont understand last part either, just gives me vibes of if someone told chatgpt to write like he was a moralist having a stroke. cared for politeness and privacy over what exactly? what do you think is the subject topic or the motive of the post? i never provided one, was just confused over the angry reaction of berhudar over a reasonable demand.

[vinme]

On 16/05/2023 at 3:49 PM, Yekaterina said:

Not speculation. Facts. People shared their account password or user.cfg with me via WhatsApp and Discord. Then I did the same with my accounts as well. I sent people my passwords as a gesture of friendship. Only my very close friends and trusted ones got to use my most important accounts. 

I'm different to GOAT; these were not gathered by snooping IP but actual first person involvement. People offered me their accounts and passwords but I declined in some cases. I used Catherine because I wanted the name but berhudar made it before me, sad. He kindly shared it with me so why not

But the names in the table are already history. No longer relevant.

I'm just demonstrating to vinme what he has encountered

 

It was berhudar, this isnt up for debate, feel free to ask him yourself, i havent seen him lie so far, he will generally just stay silent when he wants to lie, not answering the question to retain a level of illusory honesty.

[vinme]

On 16/05/2023 at 4:12 PM, rm -rf said:

Funny how do you do when the best player has no rating ? That may be weird but not really currently.

@vinmeGood joke hidden in a middle of a long and useless thread. Very OP!

how do i do what? best player has a rating, thats valihrant. if you are using google translate to post messages, i suggest you stop it doesnt work, very confusing to figure out if at all possible.

 

[Yekaterina]

@vinme frankly I can't understand the ratings anymore, since A25. 

Please define 2200, 2000, 1700, 1500 and 1300. I have no idea what they stand for nowadays. 

I don't even know my own rating, if a single real positive integer can describe me at all. 

[vinme]

On 16/05/2023 at 6:52 PM, borg- said:

I have*
Brazil has 5 world championships and has not "had" 5 championships.
Records and titles are at present.

When I die or retire you can use "had" 

ahahahaha ok just tell me when you die and ill update the wording.

11 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

@vinme frankly I can't understand the ratings anymore, since A25. 

Please define 2200, 2000, 1700, 1500 and 1300. I have no idea what they stand for nowadays. 

I don't even know my own rating, if a single real positive integer can describe me at all. 

its easy, consistent players know, as they play vs variety of players, see win/loss rate, and acertain own level, as well as relative levels. 

[vinme]

On 16/05/2023 at 7:05 PM, borg- said:

@Stan` is possible to have the rating reset to a27? I mean, the top 100 is full of inactive players and smurf accounts as well. I think it would be interesting to have this reset every so often.

idk id feel sad about that, many historical players who left are still on rating board, and since the ratings are inflating, like you had to be 1500+ several years ago to be on the board, while rn you have to be 1700, let them stay on id say.
 

[Yekaterina]

2 minutes ago, vinme said:

consistent players know

I have no idea. I took too many breaks in between. I am especially not familiar with these weird A26 metas. Please explain to me how to estimate someone's rating. For example, what's JC's rating? What calculations should I do  to reach that answer?

Also pls give me a rating as well, I need one. 

2 minutes ago, vinme said:

like you had to be 1500+ several years ago to be on the board, while rn you have to be 1700, let them stay on id say.

Old players do get rusty if they don't play for a long time.