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

[vinme]

On 16/05/2023 at 7:55 PM, borg- said:

@Stan`there will be a portion (small I think) that won't like it, but that doesn't seem like a problem to me. If cleaning brings benefits, why not? 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.

how about keep old rating, but add new one also, have a toggle for showing, one the other or both.

[rossenburg]

I fail to see the rationale behind account sharing, especially considering that each individual can readily possess or create their own account. There aren't any in-game perks, such as gun skins, legendary titles, car skins, or other materials found in games with in-app purchases, that could serve as a valid justification for wanting to test these features through someone else's account. Aside that, lending a 2000+ rated account to a player with a 1200 rating does not suddenly enhance the latter's skills to match the former's. Hence, account sharing seems unlikely unless under rare circumstances, such as accounts being compromised or accidentally disclosed on the forums.

Edited May 18, 2023 by rossenburg

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, vinme said:

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.

It would take less time for me to draw the rating distributions and come back to you with. Even if I defeat all your points 1 by 1, you will again run us in an infinite loop...

Please read my points carefully they are still valid after your long long long long sentences.

Elo/Glicko has a clear well known distribution which you can see in lichess insights. In 0Ad, you quickly see all players who stop playing rated after reaching a level (see 1500-1600 and 2000)... Or players who haven't updated since the player skills or the community size changed.

[vinme]

11 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

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. 

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

i meant more so, if someone had enough skill to reach x rating, that even  inflation didnt erode, active players skill improvement didnt erode, then they should be left the bulletin board honors.
If you played 1v1s consistently, rated, youd know your level based on win/loss rate vs players of various ratings, ive said this already.
key is vs active 1v1 playing players, so the rating isnt stale.
as well as, if you play rated, vs varity of levels mostly around your shown rating level your rating would show your skill very accurately, maybe 50 points +- 
Idk what level you are, but id say 1400-1500 perhaps, just as a very rough estimate.

[Yekaterina]

That number next to people's name mean nothing nowadays. I see 1500s getting beaten up by 1200s and 1300s. A few of the best players are unrated, probably because of smurfing. 

Ginungagap

Inlard

ooo

...

You can also farm rating or give away ratings. so yeah gg for the ratings system. 

3 minutes ago, rossenburg said:

I fail to see the rationale behind account sharing,

It's fun. 

 

Also I needed people to defend my smurf accounts. Other smurfs used me to defend their accounts. 

 

[vinme]

11 hours ago, rm -rf said:

It would take less time for me to draw the rating distributions and come back to you with. Even if I defeat all your points 1 by 1, you will again run us in an infinite loop...

Please read my points carefully they are still valid after your long long long long sentences.

Elo/Glicko has a clear well known distribution which you can see in lichess insights. In 0Ad, you quickly see all players who stop playing rated after reaching a level (see 1500-1600 and 2000)... Or players who haven't updated since the player skills or the community size changed.

The words and sentences you write make no sense, if someone could translate it to me id be happy to respond.
what does "it would take less time for me to draw the rating distributions and come back to with you. even if i defeat all your points 1 by 1 you will again run us in an infinite loop" mean? rating distributions? the dont matter, i dont care about how effective the rating system is in recreating whatever distribution you have in mind.
yes, players who dont actively play 1v1s rated, will have innacurate to their skill ratings, very often, this is self evident.

[rossenburg]

2 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

It's fun. 

it's fun to act like someone else or impersonate? if rating isnt so important like you both claim, why then do you want to use someone elses account? Not you per say, everyone that uses shared account

Edited May 18, 2023 by rossenburg

[Guest]

1 minute ago, vinme said:

i meant more so, if someone had enough skill to reach x rating, that even  inflation didnt erode, active players skill improvement didnt erode, then they should be left the bulletin board honors.
If you played 1v1s consistently, rated, youd know your level based on win/loss rate vs players of various ratings, ive said this already.
key is vs active 1v1 playing players, so the rating isnt stale.
as well as, if you play rated, vs varity of levels mostly around your shown rating level your rating would show your skill very accurately, maybe 50 points +- 
Idk what level you are, but id say 1400-1500 perhaps, just as a very rough estimate.

writing for writing... 1500 has different meanings depending on your starting rating and the numbers of players. basic math.

As trivial as the old 1950 players which may not reach 1500 nowadays.

[Yekaterina]

2 minutes ago, rossenburg said:

it's fun to act like someone else or impersonate?

Yes. 

0ad would be boring without smurfing. 

the game itself is already boring. It's the human interactions that entertain me. 

[vinme]

11 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

That number next to people's name mean nothing nowadays. I see 1500s getting beaten up by 1200s and 1300s. A few of the best players are unrated, probably because of smurfing. 

Ginungagap

Inlard

ooo

...

You can also farm rating or give away ratings. so yeah gg for the ratings system. 

It's fun. 

 

Also I needed people to defend my smurf accounts. Other smurfs used me to defend their accounts. 

 

It means more than anything else, it is of utility. exceptions exist but are easily discerned and discarded, so the utility of the rating remains, understand? ie, christopher, inactive, ever1 knows rating doesnt matter, but we still "rate" his skill level via the conventional rating system, ie 1800.
yes, many ppl never play 1v1, but improve in skill with years of tg play, OR, many leave game and lose their skill while rating remans. all these exceptions, are easy to see, and account for.
so utility of the rating system still remains. listing smurf accounts as a way to delegitimize the rating system is silly.
we know they are smurfs as no new players with 0 rated games play that well, thereby they are disqualified from the rating apraisal, as well as whoever they beat is irrelevant. if we disregard all and any effect of smurfs, its easy to utilize the rating system effectively. very few players farm rating, and those who do are easily caught in the act as their skill doenst get farmed with it. "can" but doesnt happen much.
still amazed you think smurfs beating "higher number rated" players is somehow an argument against the accuracy of the rating system.
 

[borg-]

3 minutes ago, rossenburg said:

it's fun to act like someone else or impersonate?

I think so, I've lost count of how many borg accounts I've seen in the last few years.

[vinme]

11 hours ago, rm -rf said:

writing for writing... 1500 has different meanings depending on your starting rating and the numbers of players. basic math.

As trivial as the old 1950 players which may not reach 1500 nowadays.

yeah, you do write for the sake of writing clearly given what you post seems to have almost no substance if any.
utility of the rating system is knowing a 1600 is better than a 1500, slightly, or that a 2000 is significantly better than a 1600. we all know it implicitly, through experience. @#$% the math, this is practical utility.

11 hours ago, borg- said:

I think so, I've lost count of how many borg accounts I've seen in the last few years.

is there an account named "nuborg" ? maybe ill make that one ahahaaha

[Guest]

1 minute ago, vinme said:

The words and sentences you write make no sense, if someone could translate it to me id be happy to respond.
what does "it would take less time for me to draw the rating distributions and come back to with you. even if i defeat all your points 1 by 1 you will again run us in an infinite loop" mean? rating distributions? the dont matter, i dont care about how effective the rating system is in recreating whatever distribution you have in mind.
yes, players who dont actively play 1v1s rated, will have innacurate to their skill ratings, very often, this is self evident.

You speak for yourself as usual.  What can I say in addition that there will a few a wikipedia pages about ELO/Glicko distribution which would help you a lot.

@vinmeyou're the best troller ever. We can bring any topic! you will write 100 sentences in 1 min and then say others' points are neither plain english nor incomprehensible ... you always finish by "total nonsense". and then 100 additional sentences more...

It's kind of brute force ....

[borg-]

It is natural for the general skill level to increase. Skill level 2000 from 5 years ago is not the same as today. This is logic, it shouldn't even be an argument.

[vinme]

11 hours ago, rm -rf said:

You speak for yourself as usual.  What can I say in addition that there will a few a wikipedia pages about ELO/Glicko distribution which would help you a lot.

@vinmeyou're the best troller ever. We can bring any topic! you will write 100 sentences in 1 min and then say others' points are neither plain english nor incomprehensible ... you always finish by "total nonsense". and then 100 additional sentences more...

It's kind of brute force ....

please try to put your posts in a grammar checking software, or ask others to paraphrase your intent, you will find proof that you cant speak english in a manner effective for communication. its not an accusation to discredit what you say, i promise you, as people you trust who speak fluent english, youll see.

[borg-]

We have several practical problems within the leaderboard, one of them is that inactive accounts remain with unchanging rating, this coupled with the fact that some players only play tg, or only play 1v1 unrated, makes it difficult to measure with pressure the players' level. This is not an argument to dismiss the current system as irrelevant. If you give me the name of any player I know, even if they don't have a rating, I can tell you with a certain amount of pressure how many points that player should have. So yes, it is possible to know through points, what is the skill level of each one.

Edited May 18, 2023 by borg-

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, vinme said:

please try to put your posts in a grammar checking software, or ask others to paraphrase your intent, you will find proof that you cant speak english in a manner effective for communication. its not an accusation to discredit what you say, i promise you, as people you trust who speak fluent english, youll see.

I would encourage you to learn Math and then to check your sentences. they are possibly fluent english but for sure fully non-sense.

Edited May 18, 2023 by rm -rf

[vinme]

11 hours ago, borg- said:

It is natural for the general skill level to increase. Skill level 2000 from 5 years ago is not the same as today. This is logic, it shouldn't even be an argument.

yes, i think it has increased, but i suppose it depends not only on the time that had passed, as old players get better, but also the rate of new players coming in, as well as the general "meta" of the game, how close it is to high quality comprehension of it, what opportunities there are for newer players to improve rate of their skill improvement, either through mentorship or youtube videos, etc.
id say more popular the game, stronger the "strongest" players will be.
if many new players come in, skill avg will drop, but the rating will inflate.
 

[vinme]

11 hours ago, rm -rf said:

 

I would encourage you to learn math and then to check your sentences. they are possibly fluent english but non-sense.

never spoke on math even once, so how could i have i offered any wrong math?

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, vinme said:

never spoke on math even once, so how could i have i offered any wrong math?

 

@vinmein a forum is a clear paradox.

[vinme]

yes, i am a paradox, in a forum. we agree so please stop talking to me.

[Guest]

Just now, vinme said:

yes, i am a paradox, in a forum. we agree so please stop talking to me.

For full and mutual agreement. Stop crying thread too.

[vinme]

i cant stop crying thread, it will cry if it wants, it would be inhumane to force it to stop.

[Guest]

So if I sum up. We must stop talking to you but you will keep crying on forum which we must read.

Again @vinme in a forum is a paradox.

[vinme]

yes i am crying trying to read your posts.