Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Game mode / ladder disambiguation

45 posts, 835 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 3 (45 records)
sort
This is a dump from the earlier discord discussion for visibility. Essentially, before an overhaul of the ladders gets done, there are some low hanging fruit tasks that would make the current situation make more sense for little effort.

Competitive (Matchmaker) is majority 1v1s, and 1v1ers cite not enjoying staking their elo on Sortie or Battle. "Matchmaker" is a misnomer because we have 1v1 Pro host.

Proposal: Rename this to 1v1 (Ranked). Change Sortie/Battle elo to the teams ladder, or just remove them.

Casual (Custom) has been many gamemodes, but FFA has been / is to be divorced from the mode. It would make sense if 1v1 matches were also removed from this calculation.

Proposal: Rename this to Teams (Ranked). Remove 1v1 games from the rating here.

Arguments against the lobpot / teams being ranked ignore the fact that (the origin of this discussion) this ladder has been the only way for high skill players coming from the 1v1 Ranked ladder to gain purple status - a competitive badge by definition. So either 1v1 has to be more generous in rewarding competitive play, or we label teams exactly as it is.

Proposal: Make "casual" actually casual - Have a no elo lobpot in addition to Ranked teams. For clarity's sake, have a no elo version of every ranked mode.

To aid all of the above and make it much easier to clearly see what you are getting into, changes to the lobby are suggested.



However, as AUrankAdminAquanim suggests, this need not be headers. It could be drop-down filters or some other navigation method.
+1 / -0

21 days ago
quote:
Proposal: Make "casual" actually casual - Have a no elo lobpot.

How exactly am I supposed to judge my teammates capability without an assigned rating? An important part of team games, that you personally do not participate in, is that you need to know how well your players are distributed and who to assist.

As much as I enjoy elitism, it should only be applied within individual game modes and not used as an argument of superiority between game modes. There's nothing inherently more competitive about matchmade 1v1s than large public team games, both have the same objective of victory and use the same algorithm for team compositions.

Here's my propositions:

1. No player hosted games contribute to any rating. Only games hosted by official hosts can affect rating. There's no shortage of official hosts. This will prevent low effort abuse that has been occurring.

2. FFA, 1v1 and Teams (any size) will be the new ladders, where there will be absolutely no influence of ratings from one ladder on the other ladder.

3. Rating rewards such as badge color will be awarded equally for any of the 3 ladders, with highest achievement having display priority.
+2 / -0
quote:
How exactly am I supposed to judge my teammates capability without an assigned rating? An important part of team games, that you personally do not participate in, is that you need to know how well your players are distributed and who to assist.


Would it matter in an environment that was by definition, casual? If you are playing ranked teams, all the same information will be available to you. Infact, I'm not sure where I specified that any information would be missing to you in either mode.

quote:
There's nothing inherently more competitive about matchmade 1v1s than large public team games, both have the same objective of victory and use the same algorithm for team compositions.


Thank you for making my point for me from a different angle. If 1v1 is no more competitive than large public team games, this can equally prove that team games are indeed competitive and should be labelled ranked as such.

quote:
1. No player hosted games contribute to any rating. Only games hosted by official hosts can affect rating. There's no shortage of official hosts. This will prevent low effort abuse that has been occurring.


Agree.

quote:
2. FFA, 1v1 and Teams (any size) will be the new ladders, where there will be absolutely no influence of ratings from one ladder on the other ladder.


Agree, but not low-hanging fruit. Can logically come after the changes in my OP.

quote:
3. Rating rewards such as badge color will be awarded equally for any of the 3 ladders, with highest achievement having display priority.


I like the idea of this but not psychic enough to know what you're thinking of. Tell me more?
+0 / -0
quote:
Would it matter in an environment that was by definition, casual?

There is no difference between the balance or "casualness" of a "ranked" or "casual" team game, unless you introduce fixed teams which is not part of this discussion. Given the same players, both environments will produce the same two teams using the same algorithm. Both teams will try to win, assuming they will not try to win is not arguing in good faith.

quote:
If 1v1 is no more competitive than large public team games, this can equally prove that team games are indeed competitive and should be labelled ranked as such.

I frankly do not care if either is labeled as casual, I think those are deceptive labels that do not represent the game environment. It can be called red and blue for all it matters. Both modes need a rating system to maintain a semblance of fair games, how it is labeled doesn't change this.

quote:
I like the idea of this but not psychic enough to know what you're thinking of. Tell me more?

I'm unsure what you misunderstood.

Current ladder reward: your badge has a color based on your rating in casual ladder.
Proposed ladder reward: your badge has a color based on your highest rating out of all ladders.
+0 / -0


21 days ago
quote:
There is no difference between the balance or "casualness" of a "ranked" or "casual" team game, unless you introduce fixed teams which is not part of this discussion. Given the same players, both environments will produce the same two teams using the same algorithm. Both teams will try to win, assuming they will not try to win is not arguing in good faith.


This sounds like your angle is that everything is ranked, and depends upon rating to match distribute. Which is fine, but is having the option to play no-elo games not desirable? People do need practise environments. I'm not really sure if there is an issue, or what the issue is here.

quote:
I frankly do not care if either is labeled as casual, I think those are deceptive labels that do not represent the game environment. It can be called red and blue for all it matters. Both modes need a rating system to maintain a semblance of fair games, how it is labeled doesn't change this.


It is deceptive. Thus the OP. Give them labels that represent what is actually taking place.

quote:
Current ladder reward: your badge has a color based on your rating in casual ladder.
Proposed ladder reward: your badge has a color based on your highest rating out of all ladders.


Yeah, that would be good. We briefly touched on the badge being shown matching the lobby / game mode being participated in. There are options here. However, we didn't arrive on a solution for how we distribute purple to ranked 1v1 players being that 1% = only 2 spots on the ladder. We discussed the percent being proportionate to the overall playercount, but there were issues with that. The only thing that seemed to stick was to create some abritrary "Top 5 get purple, Top 20 get blue" thing - and even that's not perfect. I don't personally have a solution to this, but I do know that the current system is broken.

Lastly, I just want to say that this post was made because the actions within it are trivial and have a quick impact. I get that they're not the end goal, but stepping stones on the journey to the idealized ladder presentation. If you can argue that these tiny tweaks leave us worse off than our current state, I'm all ears. Otherwise, don't see these as suggestions made to put it all to bed once and for all.
+0 / -0
quote:
Which is fine, but is having the option to play no-elo games not desirable?

I have no problem with people playing no-elo games. I even suggested all non-official player hosted games be forced to no-elo.

My problem was with you wanting to remove elo from "lobpot", which would absolutely destroy any balance as that's the only room that's consistently played aside from 1v1 games.

quote:
Proposal: Make "casual" actually casual - Have a no elo lobpot.
+1 / -0
quote:
My problem was with you wanting to remove elo from "lobpot", which would absolutely destroy any balance as that's the only room that's consistently played aside from 1v1 games.


Right, I get you now. I was suggesting a concurrent version of the lobby. So you'd essentially have 1v1 ranked, teams ranked, (ffa ranked but not part of the scope of this post, definitely ideal though), and then the unranked equivelant of all of the above. It was more an "in addition to" than an "instead of". Sorry if the wording wasn't quite there. I think we might want the same things.
+0 / -0

21 days ago
quote:
I think we might want the same things.

We do not, I don't want to encourage no-elo games.
+0 / -0


21 days ago
quote:
I have no problem with people playing no-elo games. I even suggested all non-official player hosted games be forced to no-elo.


quote:
We do not, I don't want to encourage no-elo games.


What.

Thankfully I think everything we covered up to this point clarified my intent perfectly. Thanks for helping me to clear things up.
+1 / -0
21 days ago
quote:
We do not, I don't want to encourage no-elo games.


No Elo Games are vital for newer players to both join the community and stick around, elo gameplay promotes competitiveness which is fun and all but when the game mode is "casual" and it is actually just rated newer players are confused, and experienced players are annoyed they have to carry
Having No-Elo allows for more relaxed games and more community building and learning, The idea of casual is to be exactly that "casual" in any other game this is the case but due to a mix of player count and game mode popularities the playlist has switched to comp
It is a win win for everyone, most people i feel will still want to play elo games, whilst newer players and people relaxing can actually do so in a non elo environment
+0 / -0


21 days ago
Right, imagine having a place where you can build storages without a big hitter's elo being on the line. It is win win. I give people the benefit of the doubt that they don't hit something labelled explicitly as "ranked" as easily as they do something labelled "casual teams".
+0 / -0
quote:
What.

Being OK with something and not actively encouraging it is a big difference. Players not being able to host elo rated games is vital to prevent abuse. Your suggestion would attempt to split the playerbase into a no-elo "lobpot" where no balance could ever take place.
+0 / -0
21 days ago

quote:
Being OK with something and not actively encouraging it is a big difference. Players not being able to host elo rated games is vital to prevent abuse. Your suggestion would attempt to split the playerbase into a no-elo "lobpot" where no balance could ever take place.

It would not split the player base it would allow choice into peoples gameplay rather then every game being some fiesta were a purple is crying at a level 10 for doing something non meta.
The majority of players who have experience would opt for an elo game whenever they FEEL like it and when they don't and just want to sit and hop on and play some zk with no pressure they can also do this

+0 / -0


21 days ago
quote:
Players not being able to host elo rated games is vital to prevent abuse.


Agree.

quote:
Your suggestion would attempt to split the playerbase into a no-elo "lobpot" where no balance could ever take place


Close to the mark, yes. And what happens in this lobby stays in this lobby. It doesn't impact anything, it's completely no stakes. Ranked players will be too busy engaging in ranked games to care.

Where you miss the mark is that this isn't to say that said room can't be balanced. There are numerous options on what to use to balance it, be that a hidden rating from unrated games, or your ranked rating - whichever is highest? I'm sure someone more intelligent than me can figure that one out easily.
+0 / -0
21 days ago
quote:
It would not split the player base it would allow choice into peoples gameplay rather then every game being some fiesta were a purple is crying at a level 10 for doing something non meta.
The majority of players who have experience would opt for an elo game whenever they FEEL like it and when they don't and just want to sit and hop on and play some zk with no pressure they can also do this

Without this choice it encourages people to only play when they are ready to absolutely sweat to gain elo
Which is just completely unhealthy for community growth
+0 / -0
quote:
1. No player hosted games contribute to any rating. Only games hosted by official hosts can affect rating. There's no shortage of official hosts. This will prevent low effort abuse that has been occurring.

Um. No.
One thing that's hard to remember is the shadow world of zk that you don't interact with, the groups of friends who play mostly or entirely in private rooms.
Having !balance and !predict work in those rooms is *important*.

Now, if you could make that elo separate from that used in autohost games? That could work, but it needs to exist.
It would also be nice but not essential if it were displayed in some fashion to the players in question.
+0 / -0
quote:
Having !balance and !predict work in those rooms is *important*.

I admit I never participated in such games, but I'm assuming those functions work despite having the no-elo option enabled.

It may seem like a miniscule problem due to size of the community, but allowing players to influence their rating through such custom games is a glaring security issue for the whole system. Which is why you will not find any mainstream game with such custom and simultaneously ranked games.
+1 / -0


21 days ago
unknownrankTinySpider: no-elo means those games don't adjust the number that makes !balance work.

And honestly, rating manipulation can be and is dealt with by the moderation team in a reactive fashion.
+1 / -0
quote:
And honestly, rating manipulation can be and is dealt with by the moderation team in a reactive fashion.

Possible only due to small size, even that requires someone to actually catch it. Nobody is actively looking for it, I only noticed it because the room was literally claiming to be doing boosting.
+2 / -0
21 days ago
quote:
I admit I never participated in such games, but I'm assuming those functions work despite having the no-elo option enabled.


Most people who join zk join through a group of friends playing with eachother, competing with friends in such a way promotes more play and therefore the chance of those players becoming active or retaining members outways the cons of the ability to elo manipulate
+1 / -0
Page of 3 (45 records)