Artificial adjustment of rating

[mapkoc]

Title inspired by rule 7 of terms of use:

7. Not attempt to artificially adjust any user of the service's rating or any of the statistics which impact it. (Examples of this are, but are not limited to: cheating in ranked games, reverse engineering the service, and taking advantage of other users of the service.)
8. Allow yourself to be removed from the service if at any time a moderator determines your behavior is not consistent with these rules.

Some top players (camelius, Phyzic, Boudica, chrstgtr and MorTak that I know of) started resigning immediately rated 1v1s amongst themselves, gaining and losing more than 100 points.

How does the community feel about this?

 

[elexis]

[Stan`]

7 hours ago, mapkoc said:

How does the community feel about this ?

I feel like that there should be a minimum time before the rating is taken into account like 10 mins. I think in League of Legends it's 20 mins.

@elexis What ? lol

[Lion.Kanzen]

I'm very against rating, can be nice were seasonal like sports.

[Stan`]

Just now, Lion.Kanzen said:

I'm very against rating, can be nice were seasonal like sports.

I'm not. I think it's a good thing we have one, that keep people interested. Some people like to be the best, and they also like showcasing how they own everyone, which gives publicity.

[Grugnas]

I'd instaban them all XD

Known and trusty players do not need any rating to play in high skill games and no reason at all to adjust own rating as long as there is no improvement in the balance overall.

A "seasoned" player knows the policies thus it seems more like a provocation to me since they do this in front of moderators if those ask them to stop.

EDIT:  Anyway i hope that the rating system will get a reset after the alpha stage for something of more sophisticated like "Quick games" search made by picking an average of rating of reference

Edited December 18, 2017 by Grugnas

[camel]

It wont happen again, we were beting games just for fun, that´s all´. 

[Boudica]

Thank you for bringing this topic up, mapkoc. What hasn't so far been mentioned (edit: until five seconds ago) is the reason why we could see these adjustments take place. Several players started placing bets on winners to make spectating more entertaining. When the game with bets ended, the losing party would resign another rated game instantly to give points to the winner of the bet. Even though the current ELO system is not designed for this purpose, we could still argue that the ability to guess the outcome of a game can tell a lot about how the player understands the game concepts, making the rating point adjustment more or less justified.

To make this better, I've been thinking about a possibility to add a separate system of betting points, including a dialog to offer and accept bets in-game. It seems that a system like that could increase the game engagement for spectators greatly and bring a different level of fun into the game. A cooperation with the rating system would perhaps be required, so the implementation might not be trivial. However, I suggest that we discuss if we could make a betting point system work.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Boudica

[camel]

It´s called nuclear, nice troll elexis. 

About what boudica said, i give him the reason. Those games were very funny and especially interactive, not only between ppl who beated, more ppl were talking about them and giving their opinions.

[Grugnas]

I bet user1 could have at least 2000 rating by only bets.

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 hours ago, stanislas69 said:

I'm not. I think it's a good thing we have one, that keep people interested. Some people like to be the best, and they also like showcasing how they own everyone, which gives publicity.

I'm some sick the people they can't play in sportsmanship. years ago  I was open to this.

[Hannibal_Barca]

The practice of betting for points is (as very correctly pointed out by @mapkoc) forbidden by the Terms of Use. 

 

Although betting on some poor unfortunate may be very fun and spikes interest, it is exceedingly excessive to bet 5 instaresigns on the  outcome. Indeed, there is nothing else to bet besides points so I understand the view that @camel is representing.

 

Nevertheless, the players  involved should not have bet in such a manner: betting 5 instaresigns and then openly talking about it in lobby is not acceptable.

This betting is not something we want to encourage, ratings aren't there for people to gain undeserved points. 

Now some fellow colleagues may not approve of my following verdict but I will say it nevertheless: IF an observer wants to bet with a friend on a player, so be it. 

BUT:

• A bet may only be placed with a maximum of one (1) instaresign at stake.
• A player may place maximum 1 bet per game. (= with 1 person)
• The bet may not be discussed in lobby.
• Other players in the game may validly report them

Summing it up: we don't want to hear about it, we will ban if we do

[elexis]

6 minutes ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

A bet may only be placed with a maximum of one (1) instaresign at stake.

I agree, besdes that the number of instaresigns should be 0.