FunkyFr3sh Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 OOS = Out Of Sync - I think people name it recon error in TS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyerguds Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 units killed/built I do not understand why that is important you win or you lose. like in chess does not matter how you mate the king just matters that you do. I guess that like in the games, it's a measure of "efficiency" in eliminating the opponent(s)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amokk Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 beware my one inf, one shot kill.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahj Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 units killed/built I do not understand why that is important you win or you lose. like in chess does not matter how you mate the king just matters that you do. We only plan to factor in unit counts in case of OOS or disconnect, as a means of determining which player was ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cn2mc Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 And that is a decidedly bad way to do it. Not that there really is a good way to do it, besides having an actual referee that can see the situation right before the disconnect (be it by observing or watching recordings)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
en3rgy52 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 In my opnion if a game recons it should be a draw, regardless of the current state. If someone disconnects then its a win for the person who doesn't disconnect. If someone consistently recons then you can just avoid playing them. You can be sure of one thing, if you try to award points based units, buildings etc without any context as to how the game is progressing you will end up with eleventy billion times more bickering than we already have. Also, if someone works out what they need to have in order to simply be ahead, you will end up with people either intentionally reconning (OOS) or disconnecting. Keep it simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyFr3sh Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 red alert 1 has a automatic snapshot feature on OOS, it generates a map with all the units/buildings on it, could maybe use it for such cases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Moved to main general CnCNet discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrFrodo Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 mr frodo not sure where you got that idea, but units built, killed etc have never meant anything with the ladder its just been how many points does each player have Ok so the points were given for a win(s). Nevertheless the number of points given for any particular win was based on those factors... As for the OOS/rc tie breaker;I agree with en3rgy52. If points are awarded based on number of units killd, built etc. than that could be easily abused by spammin units and try to rc. Anyone read The Black Swan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyerguds Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 And that is a decidedly bad way to do it. Not that there really is a good way to do it, besides having an actual referee that can see the situation right before the disconnect (be it by observing or watching recordings)... Right. Like any of us have the time to do THAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cn2mc Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 And that is a decidedly bad way to do it. Not that there really is a good way to do it, besides having an actual referee that can see the situation right before the disconnect (be it by observing or watching recordings)... Right. Like any of us have the time to do THAT. Never even suggested it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHANIVORE Posted July 27, 2015 Author Share Posted July 27, 2015 now you see the error in this ladder point system http://tahj.cncnet.org/#/leaderboard/ts 700+ pts, and should be no where near rank 1 atm. accumulating mass pts for participation and losses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahj Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 now you see the error in this ladder point system http://tahj.cncnet.org/#/leaderboard/ts 700+ pts, and should be no where near rank 1 atm. accumulating mass pts for participation and losses What? The person at Rank #1 has considerably more wins than anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 IMO it seems - more games are required to beat the top rank - less people sitting are liable to staying on rank 1 with 40 wins to 2 losses for the entire month and "bailing" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amokk Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 the same risk/reward for playing a elite as playing a noob does not seem right.... some think (myself included) a loss of points proportional to the difference in rank of the person you lost to (fewer losing to someone better than you losing more for a loss to someone you are ranked better than and proportional to the difference in ranks) same for winning, more points for beating someone bettter than you fewer points for beating someone not as good as you formula would be ((your rank divided by their rank) times base points) ^1.5 that would give you the same points for beating 7 top ranked players or 30 mid ranked players or 70 low ranked players ( for example ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHANIVORE Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 the game should reward you for beating better players and/or having a better W/L ratio, not just playing more games. the ladder is flawed. at the moment having 2v2 and 1v1 count on same ladder , is weird as shit. so many losses have been counted for wash games etc. odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHANIVORE Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 the same risk/reward for playing a elite as playing a noob does not seem right.... some think (myself included) a loss of points proportional to the difference in rank of the person you lost to (fewer losing to someone better than you losing more for a loss to someone you are ranked better than and proportional to the difference in ranks) same for winning, more points for beating someone bettter than you fewer points for beating someone not as good as you formula would be ((your rank divided by their rank) times base points) ^1.5 that would give you the same points for beating 7 top ranked players or 30 mid ranked players or 70 low ranked players ( for example ) ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punkernfg Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I don't agree with these participation points either, sounds like pity points to me. What other game does this? Why are we making this so complicated? Just use the regular ladder we had for WOL, there was nothing wrong with it. More points to be won if you're playing someone ranked higher, and less points if you're winning against low ranked players. Right now you even get points for spectating in a game? This ladder is not representative of skill, and that is the whole idea of a ladder. Are we worried about people going 40-2 and then dodging for the rest of the month? Make every single game count towards the ladder, no more "for fun games"...if they want to dodge after going 40-2 then they won't be able to play at all...their loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amokk Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Punkernfg, trz, and I agree on something. Holy planetary alignment, Batman !!! rofl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahj Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Yup, and all 3 of you also missed (or ignored) this reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amokk Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 now you see the error in this ladder point system http://tahj.cncnet.org/#/leaderboard/ts 700+ pts, and should be no where near rank 1 atm. accumulating mass pts for participation and losses What? The person at Rank #1 has considerably more wins than anyone else. not missed just off on this tangent Phenomena, that's a big small Sigma you've got there..or are you just happy to see Trz?....and my Mu is bigger than your Mu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punkernfg Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Yup, and all 3 of you also missed (or ignored) this reply. You're referring to the trueskill system? Honestly, I have no idea how the values and algorithms work for that sort of thing, but I do know that by counting units/structures/units lost, etc is not a good way to determine an outcome of a DC'd game. The chess reference quoted earlier is a good comparison for this. Also said earlier, selling off your base to pump the amount of units before pulling the plug could manipulate the system, or building 100 silos to make it seem like you have more structures. The only way to do it would to have screen shots, unit stats, and arguments from both players...and honestly we don't need that again. To keep things simple, whoever disconnects should get the loss, regardless of if they were ahead in the game - get a better connection to fix your problem. When it comes to Reconnection Error, there is more of a problem here. Back in the days of WOL, the RC error could have happened intentionally or accidental and points were given at random. Some RC games would give points to the winning player, the losing player, or no points were given at all, it was very random and frustrating. As I'm voting against having a forum to post screen shots, arguments, etc on who was winning the game and who the points should go to, I think we should, once again, keep it simple. If there is a way to determine which player caused the RC, they should get the loss, regardless of intentionality (just like the DC). If there is no way to determine this, I believe it should just be a draw and avoid that player if you believe they are intentionally causing the RC. In the future when there is hopefully more activity, a quick match system with a map pool could be implemented to match players with the same level of skill or rank to avoid newb bashing and dodging. If you believe someone is cheating, start a topic on the forum and we can determine as a community if they have cheated, but points will not be determined by this. If players are found guilty of cheating, give them warnings, suspend them, or ban them for a certain amount of time. Other games do the same. Xbox live players have the ability to report cheaters for all sorts of things including gameplay and system tampering. If players want to risk being suspended or banned by cheating to avoid a loss, so be it. Over time those players will be weeded out and it will be a stronger community to enjoy playing CNC games. That's my rant, please feel free to debate any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahj Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 ELO has been added (for now) on 1v1's. If you'd like to participate in ladder testing, please manually check "Ladder Test" when hosting. Everyone starts at 1500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punkernfg Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 ELO has been added (for now) on 1v1's. If you'd like to participate in ladder testing, please manually check "Ladder Test" when hosting. Everyone starts at 1500. Can you make a specific topic explaining ELO to the regular user Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahj Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Can you make a specific topic explaining ELO to the regular user Is that necessary? I feel like we have too many ladder topics as it is lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now