Heya. Because of the dynamics of FFA and just for the curiosity of it, would it be possible to split FFA into its own ladder, similar to how casual vs matchmaking is split?
+8 / -0
|
 > I don't really know if this corresponds to the current opinion of The Community. To the topic there are also various forum articles which show similar facts e.g. - https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/29001
+1 / -0
|
Welcome to the club buddy
+0 / -0
|
I requested this many years ago because it is quite unfair to gain ELO in FFA and then be inflated in team games. The algorithm should be quite simple: 5-10 ELO drawn from each player that joins FFA games. The winner of the match gets a total of 75% of the entire ELO from all players The second last surviving player gets 15% The third last gets 5% The Fourth last gets 5% Also, we could establish some FFA tourneys games where "expansion" doesn't count that much in comparison to the tactic. I am tempted to design a sandcastles map where mexes are centered in the castle and quite a few in the middle (to promote fierce fighting only in that area).
+2 / -0
|
quote:
I requested this many years ago because it is quite unfair to gain ELO in FFA and then be inflated in team games.
|
some people are hungry for the elons
+0 / -0
|
As when this has been previously discussed: * Including FFA in the casual games rating was shown to increase the quality of the ratings (as measured by predictive power as to who will win games) last time somebody ran the numbers to investigate this. This was some time ago now, I suppose it is possible this has changed based on current FFA habits. * There are other reasonable arguments as to why FFA games should not affect casual rating. For instance, it removes motivation to unreasonably collude with other players, or to deliberately throw games, in order to manipulate rating. * Actually doing anything about this requires server changes, and also potentially database edits if the change is to be made retroactive. This will require buy-in and time from infra devs who have not had much to say on the topic recently. So I would not hold my breath. quote:
The winner of the match gets a total of 75% of the entire ELO from all players
The second last surviving player gets 15%
... |
I do not think that the FFA game mode will be improved by a bunch of negotiations on the subject of "in which order will the winning player destroy everybody else", or all the losing players trying to hide cloaked stuff in corners in order to be one of the last people standing. Anything other than "winner take all" seems deeply suspect to me on that basis.
+1 / -0
|
I thought we decided to set FFA hosts to noelo, in lieu of any server work. The server fights this though, as the noelo of hosts gets scrambled sometimes.
+0 / -0
|
Having some elo for the runner up means I could actually not lose a ton of rating in fFA and play more. I always seem to come second :p
+0 / -0
|
quote:
I thought we decided to set FFA hosts to noelo, in lieu of any server work. |
I don't recall this ever having actually been done, but maybe my memory is failing me. In any case I have set the main FFA autohost to no-elo. We will see how long it sticks.
+0 / -0
|
Unless things changed, discussing elo is moot because someone always hosts a private server in the morning and that's what everybody joins. Most of the time that person is sdfa, and most of the time elo is on... or at least it was 2-3 weeks ago when I still joined those. This is another one of those things that to keep most people happy we'd need to be able to match them with players of similar skill, and to do that we need more players. So long as we keep playing vs the same 4-5 people every day, the discrepancy in skill is going to remain the way it currently is (approximately) and people will suggest tweak after tweak that don't address that problem. Skilled players do not like to get handicaped and less skilled players do not like that they don't stand a chance from the start.
+2 / -0
|
Have to agree with Galamesh. Top players have a highly efficient build structure in FFA and any newbie to the format is basically toast. Furthermore some top players pounce on the new guys if they start near them and take their spots asap. New guys in FFA not only don't have a chance but also unbalance the game because a top player with 2 spots is going to have a leg up on all the others. Maybe if players got resources to start with on a sliding scale to their rank, FFA might balance a little. A grey 1 striper getting the most extra that is. Maybe it could be an experimental no elo format just to see if it works out.
+2 / -0
|
It doesn't necessarily have to impact the casual ladder! I just want to see some cool charts that shows who's better than who in FFA. (I realize I'm basically farting in the wind since dev time and all that)
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Most of the time that person is sdfa, and most of the time elo is on... or at least it was 2-3 weeks ago when I still joined those. |
So since   sdfasdf is no longer playing Zero-K, @hedkeaf (always) opens the FFA - lobbies, without "no-elo". I asked him why he does that he said that people with "no-elo" start to troll around / play worse. (This can partially understand @hedkeaf's opinion.) The fact is that my FFA skill & team skill are not the same(certainly applies to other people as well), so something should change: Here are my ideas/suggestions (sorted by expected effort): -Activate "no-elo" automatically when selecting "FFA" mode - is not a real idea because @hedkeaf or other people would simply deactivate this in the settings. -All FFA Game automatically as "no-elo" to count no matter if it was played in the Autohost or in a "custom" Lobby. -(FFA Ladder) Could Dev. Lobs report back if this would be feasible? If other people have faster & easier ways , please post!
+1 / -0
|
As player which more then 95% battles play in FFA game type, i am against complete disabling of ratings in FFA games. Why: 1. Elo motivated players upgrading yourself, learning something, and play better. 2. Elo make hardly troll playstyle because when u lose, u lose your elo. 2. When i am playing i am expecting all players try to win this game and do all for his win as they can(as can his rank). But sometimes I see a player doing things that reduce his chances of winning(he understand that). And this happens so more often in noelo games then elo games, because elo its reason for try to win game(or do all for that), its your results. Its main reasons(i have additional in this direction) but dont want write so big longread. If admins decided turn off elo from all ffa battles i will probably stop playing zero-k. About    Hoppili question: He care about team ratings and FFA ratings shouldnt same. In general I do nothing against that. But actually, to be honest, teams elo also don`t ideal show real player level (remember Kre3er exploit). And we easy can see player A with so much better skills then player B with same rating(and influence ffa for example near to zero (1% or less FFA games)). I can explain how if u ask me. Therefore, the rating is a convention and it cant objective(but try), but this convention which helps peoples improve yourself.
+0 / -0
|
@hedkeaf The main difference is that if I join a FFA with a buddy it's VERY easy to win and have my buddy yield for me to claim a bunch of WHR points. I cannot easily do the same in lob pot. Farming WHR in FFA is detrimental to teams in that if you join with an infiated rating, the blues get stacked on the opposite team and, this is the most important point, the rest of your team has a really bad day. Most people play lob pot. If lob pot gets scewed, the vast majority of the ZK base's experience detoriates. Again I prefer FFA, but if one of the modes needs to yield to the other, undeniably, FFA needs to yield.
+0 / -0
|
The simplest solution to this would be to abolish the old ladder, or more accuratly to make it invisible. I realize this probably wont fly with the community, much less the devs. We are too numberfocused/ the general mindset here seems to be more information=always better, and while I agree with that 99% of the time I REALLY dont in this case. I cant even count the number of times where mindfullness to ELO has influenced decision making. From FFAs that dont start until someone notices that it is no elo (and for that reason somehow the results dont matter..), to people loosing FFAs on purpose in order to lower their ELo to have an easier time in the pot, to people grinding and grinding in order to climb up the ladder. All of this could be avoided if people understood that the main purpose of the general ladder is to get fairly split teams and NOT A DICK MEASURING CONTEST... Personally I use the 1v1 ladder as a way to gage a players max stength, anything else is but a rough estimate... And how could it be different, when some players do everything to max out their ELO, while others try to artifically lower it and still other just dont give a damn... Also doesnt help that color is determined by the general ladder instead of 1v1 ladder... Either split up the general ladder into a small teams (5v5 or lower), big teams and FFA ladders, that way they gain a modicum of worth as a measuring device, or (in my mind the better solution) just hide the general Elo numbers and focus only on their power in predicting the outcome of games/creating fair teams.
+0 / -0
|
There is generally pushback against making the rating used to balance team games invisible. I have to admit that being able to gauge whether a front is going to struggle in a large team game is useful. On the other hand, if nobody knows how well someone is expected to play it might be a bit harder to feel frustrated. Would we also hide playtime? If we don't then people will still judge each other, but just be less accurate. If we do, then I'd worry about people not cutting new players a bit of slack. It would be nice to know what the effects of hiding casual rating would be, idk if we'd be able to try it though. Maybe a poll can answer the question. I don't think FFA should affect any ratings. I don't care if including it makes the team balance slightly more accurate, people can't deal with it having an effect.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
On the other hand, if nobody knows how well someone is expected to play it might be a bit harder to feel frustrated. |
This seems like it gives a pretty significant advantage to players who have been around long enough to know a lot of names and some approximation of their skill level.
+1 / -0
|
How hard would it build an "anon Pot Room" in rotation, in which the player names (people know who are the strong players are anyways) and all stats are hidden (and probably some rule against declaring yourself as a certain player). This should result in quite significantly different dynamics from the planning stage and up. Players will have to figure out what their allies and opponent are up to and adapt on the fly. I do think hiding everything is probably too frustrating to play outside of novelty games though, since fast and "random" losses should happen more often as team weaknesses may not be identified and compensated by better players early. Perhaps there can be a special random team anon player ladder season (no elo, but trophy for top x% players to induce positive but not negative incentives).
+1 / -0
|
I did some drinking last night while stress watching a basketball game, so naturally I did a bunch of coding. I've scraped the website for results of all games played on [A] Free For All, and will be posting the results in the next coming days. If people like this I'll do this once a month with a "ranking" reset at the beginning of each month. It would obviously be quite unofficial, but maybe someone who can do infra would be inspired and make something official.
+5 / -0
|
