nobodyhome
01-20-2010, 10:05 PM
http://www.altitudeladder.com/images/banner3.png (http://www.altitudeladder.com/)
Tired of endless 7v7s spamfests on the official servers? Hate ratio whores and want a game where everyone plays to win? Want to have a real way of determining individual skill so that you can show the Altitude community that you really are the best player? Itching to play competitive games but don't want to bother with the hassle of joining a clan or with dealing with Proleague's scheduling?
Announcing: the Altitude Ladder (http://www.altitudeladder.com/), brought to you by Maimer, eth, and myself. Our servers are open to all and everyone is encouraged to participate!
How it works:
1. Go on one of the two Altitude Ladder servers (Ladder #1 - 5v5 TBD or Ladder #2 - 5v5 TBD).
2. Wait till there are enough players on the server (10 for tbd, 12 for ball).
3. Use the /vote custom start_<map_name> in the ladderlobby map once you have enough players not spectating.
4. Play the match out. The results will be posted in the Altitude Ladder webpage (http://www.altitudeladder.com) once the game is finished.
Sounds easy? It is easy! However, before you begin, because of the way the system works, some procedures must be followed in order for games to count. Read carefully, or forever hold your peace when your hard-earned win turned out not to have been saved!
1. The match must be a 5v5! No exceptions!
2. The startTournament must be called in the ladderlobby.
3. The startTournament must not be called off for the entire duration until the match's end. If for some reason a stopTournament must be called, then you must return to the ladderlobby and call another startTournament there.
4. If you want a rematch after finishing your game, you must call a stopTournament and then call another startTournament in the ladder lobby before beginning another. This is to prevent players from being "locked in" to multiple games and unable to leave without risking losses.
5. If someone disconnects in the middle of a game, do not worry. They can return to the game at any time and continue playing, the system only cares about the players that are present at the startTournament.
As with any tournament, there's going to be some rules. But don't worry, let's keep it short here; a more detailed description of the rules will be in the rules page (http://altitudegame.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3294).
Some Basic Rules:
1. Don't be a douche. This includes abuse of any kind, being exceptionally rude on the servers, or obstruction of games in progress in any form.
2. Follow the procedures to make sure your game counts. We will not be recording games missed by the system if the procedures were not followed.
3. Have fun! Climb high! Get serious.
But but, how is the scoring going to work, you ask? Aren't people going to try to stack teams in order to gain an advantage? Fear not!
Rating system:
The rating system will take into account everybody's rating and assign points accordingly. It is a team based adaption of the Elo rating system. In this system, beating a lower rated opponent will result in a smaller rating gain than if you beat a higher rated opponent. Conversely, losing to a lower rated opponent will result in a larger rating loss than losing to a higher ranked opponent. So as a result it is in everybody's advantage to try to decide teams as evenly as possible.
What about prizes? Well, we've got this area covered too:
Prizes:
Maimer, by courtesy of Lamster, has offered to donate 1000 of his community points towards prizes for this later. How they will be given is yet to be announced. It won't just be number 1 on the ladder, as their will be a variety of ways to earn the points!
So what are you waiting for? Go on the ladder and play some games! It's time to get serious.
Much thanks to tec27 for being our coding god and advisor. Thanks to Stormich for advice, suggestions, and general moral support. Thanks to everyone who helped us work out the bugs while doing our test runs on the servers.
FAQ
My game wasn't counted!
Read the Procedures section of this post to see if you followed all the right procedures in playing your match; if you did not, the ladder will not count your game (and it will never be counted). If you
believed you followed all the procedures correctly and your game still wasn't counted, PM the ladder admins (nobodyhome, eth, or Maimer) with a description of the match (the players present, the winner, the map played, and most importantly, the time and day it was played on).
What happens if someone leaves in the middle of a game?
The game will go on, since by being present at the tournament, the leaver had agreed to play a game. The match will be counted even if at the end of the game it is a 4v5. If everyone agrees, a stopTournament can be called and another game can be started with new teams, but the leaver's opposing team is not obligated to do so.
Are there plans to incorporate ball or other modes in the future?
Depending on demand, we may or may not incorporate other modes in the future. Stay tuned, the ladder is going to be in constant development.
What is the rating system exactly?
New Rating = Old Rating + [ 50 * ( S - E ) ]
Where S is 1 if you won and 0 if you lost, and the value of E is calculated for each team as follows.
E = 1 / [1 + 10^ ([(Avg rating of your opponents)-(Avg rating of you and your teammates)] / 400)]
Tired of endless 7v7s spamfests on the official servers? Hate ratio whores and want a game where everyone plays to win? Want to have a real way of determining individual skill so that you can show the Altitude community that you really are the best player? Itching to play competitive games but don't want to bother with the hassle of joining a clan or with dealing with Proleague's scheduling?
Announcing: the Altitude Ladder (http://www.altitudeladder.com/), brought to you by Maimer, eth, and myself. Our servers are open to all and everyone is encouraged to participate!
How it works:
1. Go on one of the two Altitude Ladder servers (Ladder #1 - 5v5 TBD or Ladder #2 - 5v5 TBD).
2. Wait till there are enough players on the server (10 for tbd, 12 for ball).
3. Use the /vote custom start_<map_name> in the ladderlobby map once you have enough players not spectating.
4. Play the match out. The results will be posted in the Altitude Ladder webpage (http://www.altitudeladder.com) once the game is finished.
Sounds easy? It is easy! However, before you begin, because of the way the system works, some procedures must be followed in order for games to count. Read carefully, or forever hold your peace when your hard-earned win turned out not to have been saved!
1. The match must be a 5v5! No exceptions!
2. The startTournament must be called in the ladderlobby.
3. The startTournament must not be called off for the entire duration until the match's end. If for some reason a stopTournament must be called, then you must return to the ladderlobby and call another startTournament there.
4. If you want a rematch after finishing your game, you must call a stopTournament and then call another startTournament in the ladder lobby before beginning another. This is to prevent players from being "locked in" to multiple games and unable to leave without risking losses.
5. If someone disconnects in the middle of a game, do not worry. They can return to the game at any time and continue playing, the system only cares about the players that are present at the startTournament.
As with any tournament, there's going to be some rules. But don't worry, let's keep it short here; a more detailed description of the rules will be in the rules page (http://altitudegame.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3294).
Some Basic Rules:
1. Don't be a douche. This includes abuse of any kind, being exceptionally rude on the servers, or obstruction of games in progress in any form.
2. Follow the procedures to make sure your game counts. We will not be recording games missed by the system if the procedures were not followed.
3. Have fun! Climb high! Get serious.
But but, how is the scoring going to work, you ask? Aren't people going to try to stack teams in order to gain an advantage? Fear not!
Rating system:
The rating system will take into account everybody's rating and assign points accordingly. It is a team based adaption of the Elo rating system. In this system, beating a lower rated opponent will result in a smaller rating gain than if you beat a higher rated opponent. Conversely, losing to a lower rated opponent will result in a larger rating loss than losing to a higher ranked opponent. So as a result it is in everybody's advantage to try to decide teams as evenly as possible.
What about prizes? Well, we've got this area covered too:
Prizes:
Maimer, by courtesy of Lamster, has offered to donate 1000 of his community points towards prizes for this later. How they will be given is yet to be announced. It won't just be number 1 on the ladder, as their will be a variety of ways to earn the points!
So what are you waiting for? Go on the ladder and play some games! It's time to get serious.
Much thanks to tec27 for being our coding god and advisor. Thanks to Stormich for advice, suggestions, and general moral support. Thanks to everyone who helped us work out the bugs while doing our test runs on the servers.
FAQ
My game wasn't counted!
Read the Procedures section of this post to see if you followed all the right procedures in playing your match; if you did not, the ladder will not count your game (and it will never be counted). If you
believed you followed all the procedures correctly and your game still wasn't counted, PM the ladder admins (nobodyhome, eth, or Maimer) with a description of the match (the players present, the winner, the map played, and most importantly, the time and day it was played on).
What happens if someone leaves in the middle of a game?
The game will go on, since by being present at the tournament, the leaver had agreed to play a game. The match will be counted even if at the end of the game it is a 4v5. If everyone agrees, a stopTournament can be called and another game can be started with new teams, but the leaver's opposing team is not obligated to do so.
Are there plans to incorporate ball or other modes in the future?
Depending on demand, we may or may not incorporate other modes in the future. Stay tuned, the ladder is going to be in constant development.
What is the rating system exactly?
New Rating = Old Rating + [ 50 * ( S - E ) ]
Where S is 1 if you won and 0 if you lost, and the value of E is calculated for each team as follows.
E = 1 / [1 + 10^ ([(Avg rating of your opponents)-(Avg rating of you and your teammates)] / 400)]
Triped
01-20-2010, 10:17 PM
Very good idea. Can't wait to play. :)
eth
01-20-2010, 10:19 PM
HOW AWESOME IS THIS? THANKS A LOT GU-
oh wait
oh wait
Blue
01-20-2010, 10:27 PM
Awesome idea cant wait thx man
Massi
01-20-2010, 10:38 PM
I am now an honorary first game ever played ladder person.
And I lost. ACE!!!
And I lost. ACE!!!
eth
01-20-2010, 10:51 PM
Our apologies, due to some unforeseen technical difficulties(shock horror), we won't be able to launch the servers for another ~4 hours. Please bear with us :(
edit: The ones that played a match already will have their match recorded manually by us, so you didn't lose anything.
edit: The ones that played a match already will have their match recorded manually by us, so you didn't lose anything.
Pieface
01-20-2010, 10:53 PM
This is such a great idea, I can't wait to check it out!
hurripilot
01-20-2010, 10:55 PM
I can see my e-esteem taking a hit from this....
combat
01-20-2010, 10:57 PM
I am now an honorary first game ever played ladder person.
And I lost. ACE!!!
Me too, 0-1 for Combat!!
And I lost. ACE!!!
Me too, 0-1 for Combat!!
GGQ
01-20-2010, 10:59 PM
I am now an honorary first game ever played ladder person.
And I lost. ACE!!!
+tec! winning bomb drop!
And I lost. ACE!!!
+tec! winning bomb drop!
[Y]
01-20-2010, 11:04 PM
epic finish by tec
meh we never had a chance against ACE
meh we never had a chance against ACE
GGQ
01-20-2010, 11:06 PM
;34006']epic finish by tec
meh we never had a chance against ACE
You guys got close, and pulled off a couple of really good attacks.
meh we never had a chance against ACE
You guys got close, and pulled off a couple of really good attacks.
[FN]MONXY FIST
01-20-2010, 11:15 PM
Guy's i love you.
DMCM
01-20-2010, 11:43 PM
Guys I have a question.
The other day I was in a couple of test games in that server.
I lost both but the ladder said I had 66.6% wins. Why was that so?
The other day I was in a couple of test games in that server.
I lost both but the ladder said I had 66.6% wins. Why was that so?
nobodyhome
01-20-2010, 11:58 PM
Guys I have a question.
The other day I was in a couple of test games in that server.
I lost both but the ladder said I had 66.6% wins. Why was that so?
At the time of the test, the database was filled with dummy data extracted from the games played in captain's game server in the month of december.
You likely had won 4 games in the captain's game server then, so when you lost two more games it made it out to be 66.6% wins.
Neither the test games nor the captain's game data will be counted toward the real ladder.
The other day I was in a couple of test games in that server.
I lost both but the ladder said I had 66.6% wins. Why was that so?
At the time of the test, the database was filled with dummy data extracted from the games played in captain's game server in the month of december.
You likely had won 4 games in the captain's game server then, so when you lost two more games it made it out to be 66.6% wins.
Neither the test games nor the captain's game data will be counted toward the real ladder.
matattack
01-21-2010, 12:08 AM
So much for waiting a week eh guys? What was that 30hrs? xD
can't wait to try it!! Great work~
can't wait to try it!! Great work~
porpus
01-21-2010, 01:10 AM
awesome job! Good work nobody and crew!
Can't wait to get in there and play with extreme mediocrity.
Can't wait to get in there and play with extreme mediocrity.
eth
01-21-2010, 01:27 AM
Okay guys! We finally fixed our technical problems, and the ladder servers are now up and running. Get out there and play! ;)
combat
01-21-2010, 03:24 AM
A question, will the ladder update our nicknames if we decide to change it?
And, I wanted to add my thanks to this system, finally somewhere where everybody (tries) to be a team player and win games. I can't wait to put up some more wins!
And, I wanted to add my thanks to this system, finally somewhere where everybody (tries) to be a team player and win games. I can't wait to put up some more wins!
GGQ
01-21-2010, 03:25 AM
In the beta, the system was designed to change your name on the ladder only if you play five consecutive games with your new name. I imagine that's still how it works.
nesnl
01-21-2010, 03:32 AM
A question, will the ladder update our nicknames if we decide to change it?
And, I wanted to add my thanks to this system, finally somewhere where everybody (tries) to be a team player and win games. I can't wait to put up some more wins!
Most questions, such as these, can be answered on the Rules page on the Altitude Ladder website. GGQ is correct in that if you change your name you must play 5 consecutive games with that name for it to reflect on the website.
Make sure you take the time to read all the rules!
And, I wanted to add my thanks to this system, finally somewhere where everybody (tries) to be a team player and win games. I can't wait to put up some more wins!
Most questions, such as these, can be answered on the Rules page on the Altitude Ladder website. GGQ is correct in that if you change your name you must play 5 consecutive games with that name for it to reflect on the website.
Make sure you take the time to read all the rules!
combat
01-21-2010, 03:50 AM
Most questions, such as these, can be answered on the Rules page on the Altitude Ladder website. GGQ is correct in that if you change your name you must play 5 consecutive games with that name for it to reflect on the website.
Make sure you take the time to read all the rules!
Thanks Maimer, I didn't think to luck under the rules section, will look through it thoroughly. And just to clarify, that means once you change it, you have to play 5 more games with the new name, then it will change on the website? And those 5 will still count towards your record and such?
Make sure you take the time to read all the rules!
Thanks Maimer, I didn't think to luck under the rules section, will look through it thoroughly. And just to clarify, that means once you change it, you have to play 5 more games with the new name, then it will change on the website? And those 5 will still count towards your record and such?
Tank
01-21-2010, 04:14 AM
can you make it count experience points earned? that would be more of a fair indicator of personal skill level.
Varonth
01-21-2010, 04:21 AM
A really nice idea, in also worked out very well.
There is just one think i don't get:
The use of /vote stopTournament is strictly prohibited during a Ladder match. If anyone is found to be trying to avoid a loss by using the /vote stoptournament to avoid a loss please take a screenshot and post it along with a description in the Altitude Ladder Thread on the Official Altitude Forums.
Why should it be strictly prohibited?
Just let a 100% vote stop the tournament.
If everyone agrees, or at least doesn't disagree, then they should be allowed to stop a match.
Often someone disconnects during a match due to a problem with their connection or something else.
If now both teams decide to abort the match, they should be allowed to do so in my oppinion.
There is just one think i don't get:
The use of /vote stopTournament is strictly prohibited during a Ladder match. If anyone is found to be trying to avoid a loss by using the /vote stoptournament to avoid a loss please take a screenshot and post it along with a description in the Altitude Ladder Thread on the Official Altitude Forums.
Why should it be strictly prohibited?
Just let a 100% vote stop the tournament.
If everyone agrees, or at least doesn't disagree, then they should be allowed to stop a match.
Often someone disconnects during a match due to a problem with their connection or something else.
If now both teams decide to abort the match, they should be allowed to do so in my oppinion.
classicallad
01-21-2010, 04:41 AM
this is the best thing that has happened ever, ever. <3
CCN
01-21-2010, 04:45 AM
great job guys.
Love it.
However if you havn't maybe consider upping the admin count a bit to make games smoother to start?
Reguarless, this, is, awesome.
Love it.
However if you havn't maybe consider upping the admin count a bit to make games smoother to start?
Reguarless, this, is, awesome.
CDRdude
01-21-2010, 04:48 AM
This looks like a very good idea, but I have one concern. From the rules:
"Any player who is on a team at the start of a match will have results recorded even if they leave the game. This means that leaving a game will not prevent a loss. As a result everyone is encouraged to finish every game they start and to report anyone who habitually leaves games early in the Altitude Ladder Thread on the Official Altitude Forums.
The use of /vote stopTournament is strictly prohibited during a Ladder match."
I was spectating a scrim between ACE and FN, and it looked like tyr had connection problems and was disconnected for a couple minutes. That made me think; if he wasn't able to rejoin the game, his team would have been at a disadvantage, playing 4v5. So it's possible that a whole team can get a loss because of one player leaving.
"Any player who is on a team at the start of a match will have results recorded even if they leave the game. This means that leaving a game will not prevent a loss. As a result everyone is encouraged to finish every game they start and to report anyone who habitually leaves games early in the Altitude Ladder Thread on the Official Altitude Forums.
The use of /vote stopTournament is strictly prohibited during a Ladder match."
I was spectating a scrim between ACE and FN, and it looked like tyr had connection problems and was disconnected for a couple minutes. That made me think; if he wasn't able to rejoin the game, his team would have been at a disadvantage, playing 4v5. So it's possible that a whole team can get a loss because of one player leaving.
nobodyhome
01-21-2010, 04:56 AM
About stopTournament and disconnects:
The point is noted. From now on, stopTournament is allowed at the discretion of the players. If there is a problem with one or more of the players and the other team agrees to restart, they may call stopTournament and restart the game appropriately (remember to call the startTournament in the ladderlobby, however, else the game will not be counted).
However, if the match is already started and a player on your team disconnects, it is up to other team to decide whether they want to allow a restart or not--they are not obligated to do so. Remember, when you are present in a team during a startTournament, you agree to play out the match in full. Also keep in mind that if you do disconnect, you can rejoin the game at any time and keep playing. In addition, if you disconnect and never come back, you will still receive a win if your team happens to win the ensuing 4v5.
The point is noted. From now on, stopTournament is allowed at the discretion of the players. If there is a problem with one or more of the players and the other team agrees to restart, they may call stopTournament and restart the game appropriately (remember to call the startTournament in the ladderlobby, however, else the game will not be counted).
However, if the match is already started and a player on your team disconnects, it is up to other team to decide whether they want to allow a restart or not--they are not obligated to do so. Remember, when you are present in a team during a startTournament, you agree to play out the match in full. Also keep in mind that if you do disconnect, you can rejoin the game at any time and keep playing. In addition, if you disconnect and never come back, you will still receive a win if your team happens to win the ensuing 4v5.
nesnl
01-21-2010, 04:57 AM
A really nice idea, in also worked out very well.
There is just one think i don't get:
Why should it be strictly prohibited?
Just let a 100% vote stop the tournament.
If everyone agrees, or at least doesn't disagree, then they should be allowed to stop a match.
Often someone disconnects during a match due to a problem with their connection or something else.
If now both teams decide to abort the match, they should be allowed to do so in my oppinion.
The command stopTournament will cause the matches results to be invalidated. If everyone agrees to stop because of whatever reason then it can be allowed. However, if one team chooses to stopTournament because they are losing, well then that's abuse of the system.
Just make sure that if you are going to stop a match that the other team agrees before you do it. There shouldn't be many cases where this is needed. This is because subs are not allowed. Attempting to sub a player in by stopping and starting a tournament will cause the results to be invalidated. startTournament must occur in the ladderlobby.
can you make it count experience points earned? that would be more of a fair indicator of personal skill level.
Experience points earned currently isn't supported in something we can do. And I think that it actually isn't a very good indicator of skill in a particular game mode, although it might be a good indicator of skill in 1v1 dog fighting. However, in team games you often sacrifice your own stats so that your team can win. I assure you that the mathematical equations used to determine your personal rating on the ladder are a very fair and accurate way of determining skill in a team based game. Give it a shot and you might like it!
great job guys.
Love it.
However if you havn't maybe consider upping the admin count a bit to make games smoother to start?
Reguarless, this, is, awesome.
The admin count is low on purpose. This is because the admins should never be using the /starttournament or /changemap commands themselves. As far as I am concerned this is important to prevent cases where an admin might change a map to something that they wanted instead of what everyone agreed upon. Votes ensure that everyone knows whats going on and results will be as fair as possible.
There is just one think i don't get:
Why should it be strictly prohibited?
Just let a 100% vote stop the tournament.
If everyone agrees, or at least doesn't disagree, then they should be allowed to stop a match.
Often someone disconnects during a match due to a problem with their connection or something else.
If now both teams decide to abort the match, they should be allowed to do so in my oppinion.
The command stopTournament will cause the matches results to be invalidated. If everyone agrees to stop because of whatever reason then it can be allowed. However, if one team chooses to stopTournament because they are losing, well then that's abuse of the system.
Just make sure that if you are going to stop a match that the other team agrees before you do it. There shouldn't be many cases where this is needed. This is because subs are not allowed. Attempting to sub a player in by stopping and starting a tournament will cause the results to be invalidated. startTournament must occur in the ladderlobby.
can you make it count experience points earned? that would be more of a fair indicator of personal skill level.
Experience points earned currently isn't supported in something we can do. And I think that it actually isn't a very good indicator of skill in a particular game mode, although it might be a good indicator of skill in 1v1 dog fighting. However, in team games you often sacrifice your own stats so that your team can win. I assure you that the mathematical equations used to determine your personal rating on the ladder are a very fair and accurate way of determining skill in a team based game. Give it a shot and you might like it!
great job guys.
Love it.
However if you havn't maybe consider upping the admin count a bit to make games smoother to start?
Reguarless, this, is, awesome.
The admin count is low on purpose. This is because the admins should never be using the /starttournament or /changemap commands themselves. As far as I am concerned this is important to prevent cases where an admin might change a map to something that they wanted instead of what everyone agreed upon. Votes ensure that everyone knows whats going on and results will be as fair as possible.
nobodyhome
01-21-2010, 09:07 AM
Updated the FAQ to include the formula for the rating system.
-MH-CaptainVogez
01-21-2010, 10:51 AM
I must say I really like this guys - it makes the game seem so much more real for all the players out there!
Is this intended to be a system reserved for those who play in the certain servers only? Because if later on if this could be developed into a generic option for all servers it would be amazing.
Pros:
*Rating of all players who are interested in rankings (me!!!)
*A good rewards system and tournaments can be arranged through this.
Cons:
*Bot farming would be impossible to notice (due to personal servers)
Solution: enable this system also for the Official Servers and Tournament Servers when there is 10 players
Is this intended to be a system reserved for those who play in the certain servers only? Because if later on if this could be developed into a generic option for all servers it would be amazing.
Pros:
*Rating of all players who are interested in rankings (me!!!)
*A good rewards system and tournaments can be arranged through this.
Cons:
*Bot farming would be impossible to notice (due to personal servers)
Solution: enable this system also for the Official Servers and Tournament Servers when there is 10 players
Stormich
01-21-2010, 11:15 AM
This is working only on the servers that the guys are running. ATM there are 2 servers with ladder capabilities. What happens later depends on the reactions of the playerbase. As of now I think a lot of people like it, the only problem is getting a game started, it takes a lot of time for people to decide :D
TAYLOOP
01-21-2010, 11:32 AM
Yeah no one wants to take a chance on the losing side. >.< That's the only problem I've seen with this so far, had some great games earlier on it. Thanks to Nobo, Maimer and eth for making it possible
Sarah Palin
01-21-2010, 12:38 PM
Yes, it's generally been about 10 minutes playing, then 20+ minutes waiting for people to sort out teams.
One feature you could add to the website is a game matchmaking widget.
A person could type in the ladder ID numbers of 10 players, and the site would compute the most even possible ELO matchup & print it onscreen.
As an example, say the following players are in a ladder server:
tyr (1615)
Maimer (1561)
GGQ (1525)
Class (1520)
Palin (1496)
Luke (1475)
Kombat (1475)
Vi (1473)
Eso (1450)
Sinstar (1418)
The sum is 15,008. So a perfect team will have 7504 ELO.
I picked a few teams of 5 at random. A team of Maimer, GGQ, Palin, Vi, and Eso has an ELO of 7505, while their opponents will have 7503 ELO. Game on!
One feature you could add to the website is a game matchmaking widget.
A person could type in the ladder ID numbers of 10 players, and the site would compute the most even possible ELO matchup & print it onscreen.
As an example, say the following players are in a ladder server:
tyr (1615)
Maimer (1561)
GGQ (1525)
Class (1520)
Palin (1496)
Luke (1475)
Kombat (1475)
Vi (1473)
Eso (1450)
Sinstar (1418)
The sum is 15,008. So a perfect team will have 7504 ELO.
I picked a few teams of 5 at random. A team of Maimer, GGQ, Palin, Vi, and Eso has an ELO of 7505, while their opponents will have 7503 ELO. Game on!
eth
01-21-2010, 03:02 PM
Realtime autobalance(no need to type in names/IDs) is in the works. At first it'll be on the website, but we'd like to make an Altitude Ladder Launcher later on which displays autobalance in-game.
Also CaptainVogez thats probably not gonna happen since we run a program in parallel with the altitude servers, which tells the website about what's happening etc. Anyway I'm glad most people are enjoying this!
Also CaptainVogez thats probably not gonna happen since we run a program in parallel with the altitude servers, which tells the website about what's happening etc. Anyway I'm glad most people are enjoying this!
VeRiTaS
01-21-2010, 04:25 PM
this ladder thing is great...Even the rank list updates the moment the match is over...it is awesome...let's hope it will last for ever :D :P
Flyngbanana
01-21-2010, 04:48 PM
It was working before, but now when i click on someone's name on the ladder this appears...
Database::Error: Database query failed: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '\r\n FROM player_accounts WHERE id=236' at line 1 Query reads:SELECT username,id,vaporid,rating_tbd_5v5,rank_tbd_5v5,wi n_tbd_5v5,match_ids_tbd_5v5,loss_tbd_5v5,streak_hi ghest_win, streak_highest_lose, streak_current, streak_is_win\r\n FROM player_accounts WHERE id=236
Database::Error: Database query failed: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '\r\n FROM player_accounts WHERE id=236' at line 1 Query reads:SELECT username,id,vaporid,rating_tbd_5v5,rank_tbd_5v5,wi n_tbd_5v5,match_ids_tbd_5v5,loss_tbd_5v5,streak_hi ghest_win, streak_highest_lose, streak_current, streak_is_win\r\n FROM player_accounts WHERE id=236
eth
01-21-2010, 05:02 PM
Haha sorry Banana, I was just fixing some (potential) SQL injections. It's working now.
edit: Flight, countries are on the to-do list. Autobalancing has priority for now though.
edit: Flight, countries are on the to-do list. Autobalancing has priority for now though.
Flyngbanana
01-21-2010, 05:42 PM
Okays :) Thought I broke it. :P
Flight 666
01-21-2010, 06:06 PM
Would be cool, if possible put a "flag" to show the nationality of each player
nesnl
01-21-2010, 06:20 PM
Thanks to eth the Altitude Ladder is now more legit with the Domain Name www.altitudeladder.net!
DiogenesDog
01-21-2010, 07:09 PM
Holy ****, this is amazing. You guys are my heroes.
LADDER TIME BITCHES
LADDER TIME BITCHES
tgleaf
01-21-2010, 07:28 PM
Really, really impressive setup.
Would love a ball ladder at some point.
Would love a ball ladder at some point.
nesnl
01-21-2010, 07:47 PM
Just because this might not be so obvious, but you can click on anyone's name in the ladder and it will bring you to a profile page for that person. This page includes a list of statistics for that person. On that page you will see "Total Games" and then a number followed by the word Matchlist. If you click on matchlist you can see details about every game they played including the teams (by mousing over the winning and losing team) and also the map played and duration.
I realize that this may be obvious to some people, but figured I would throw it out there anyway.
I realize that this may be obvious to some people, but figured I would throw it out there anyway.
Nikon
01-21-2010, 07:59 PM
Really, really impressive setup.
Would love a ball ladder at some point.
Yeah I would LOVE a ball ladder really soon.
Would love a ball ladder at some point.
Yeah I would LOVE a ball ladder really soon.
eth
01-21-2010, 08:28 PM
Yeah I would LOVE a ball ladder really soon.
Everything is more or less setup for ball and duel ladders, the only thing they depend on is the activity of the current ladder. If it ends up being really popular I'm 99% sure we'll add these modes later on. But yeah, don't expect new modes until the end of Season 1 at the earliest.
Everything is more or less setup for ball and duel ladders, the only thing they depend on is the activity of the current ladder. If it ends up being really popular I'm 99% sure we'll add these modes later on. But yeah, don't expect new modes until the end of Season 1 at the earliest.
wolf'j'max
01-21-2010, 08:58 PM
Yay 7th place. I really like this and with this invented for altitide we can get an even higher level of play AND more players! Good job guys!
Pax
01-21-2010, 09:42 PM
Great job, guys!
This is the beginning of a new era in Altitude!
This is the beginning of a new era in Altitude!
Sarah Palin
01-22-2010, 12:16 AM
Realtime autobalance(no need to type in names/IDs) is in the works. At first it'll be on the website, but we'd like to make an Altitude Ladder Launcher later on which displays autobalance in-game.
That is so awesome I don't even know what to say.
Thanks so much for creating all of this, guys. It's great.
That is so awesome I don't even know what to say.
Thanks so much for creating all of this, guys. It's great.
Vi*
01-22-2010, 12:36 AM
It's pretty cool. Kinda frustrating when people lag/leave/take ****ing forever between games.
Obviously you should add deathmatch.
One other concern is that the list is pretty cluttered with people who've only played one match. You should probably make it so you only get on the official list after playing a bunch.
Obviously you should add deathmatch.
One other concern is that the list is pretty cluttered with people who've only played one match. You should probably make it so you only get on the official list after playing a bunch.
Esoteric
01-22-2010, 01:19 AM
The current formula is, right now, a poor one.
ELO is a system that works based on assigning each player/team "odds" of winning, and then rewarding based on that. For instance if you have two players, player a with 1900 and player b with 1500, player a should beat player b 10 times for each time player b beats player a -- A wins 10/11 times.
However, we're dealing with teams rather than a 1v1 so we need to estimate the odds that team a beats team b. You, however, compare a player's ELO against the enemy team's ELO. You are, essentially saying that each person on my team has different odds of beating the enemy team. Obviously, this is somewhat nonsensical. I can't have a 2/3 chance of winning while my teammate has a 1/2 chance--we have an equal chance of winning as we're on the same team.
Currently:
E = 1 / [1 + 10^ ([(Avg rating of the opponents of Player 1)-(Rating of player 1)] / 400)]
Recommended:
E = 1 / [1 + 10^ ([(Avg rating of the opponents of Player 1)-(Avg rating of player 1 and player 1's team)] / 400)]
Your current system encourages people to play only with those better than them on their team, as you have the same personal "odds of winning" whether your teammates are A-list talent or demo loopies. That is a broken--but easily fixed system. Team autobalance will not fix the issue--though it would be a tremendous boon to gameplay.
There's also the separate question of "is averaging player's ELO rating a good estimate of the team's ELO." I don't have an answer for that one, doubtful anyone does, but I'd recommend keeping track of all games played so you can modify the formula later if necessary. I'd imagine a team's variance has an effect but no way to know without keeping records.
ELO is a system that works based on assigning each player/team "odds" of winning, and then rewarding based on that. For instance if you have two players, player a with 1900 and player b with 1500, player a should beat player b 10 times for each time player b beats player a -- A wins 10/11 times.
However, we're dealing with teams rather than a 1v1 so we need to estimate the odds that team a beats team b. You, however, compare a player's ELO against the enemy team's ELO. You are, essentially saying that each person on my team has different odds of beating the enemy team. Obviously, this is somewhat nonsensical. I can't have a 2/3 chance of winning while my teammate has a 1/2 chance--we have an equal chance of winning as we're on the same team.
Currently:
E = 1 / [1 + 10^ ([(Avg rating of the opponents of Player 1)-(Rating of player 1)] / 400)]
Recommended:
E = 1 / [1 + 10^ ([(Avg rating of the opponents of Player 1)-(Avg rating of player 1 and player 1's team)] / 400)]
Your current system encourages people to play only with those better than them on their team, as you have the same personal "odds of winning" whether your teammates are A-list talent or demo loopies. That is a broken--but easily fixed system. Team autobalance will not fix the issue--though it would be a tremendous boon to gameplay.
There's also the separate question of "is averaging player's ELO rating a good estimate of the team's ELO." I don't have an answer for that one, doubtful anyone does, but I'd recommend keeping track of all games played so you can modify the formula later if necessary. I'd imagine a team's variance has an effect but no way to know without keeping records.
Sarah Palin
01-22-2010, 01:24 AM
Here is a simplification of the rating system.
On the left is YOUR score minus the enemy's AVERAGE score. On the right is the amount of points you will GAIN if you win.
The amount of points you will DROP if you lose is just whatever number will make the two add up to 50. (For example if you could win 30 points, you could lose 20).
(if you are infinitely worse than the enemy you will gain 50 points (and stand to lose 0))
-500 = 47
-400 = 45
-300 = 42
-200 = 38
-100 = 32
-75 = 30
-50 = 28
-25 = 27
-10 = 26
0 = 25
10 = 24
25 = 23
50 = 21
75 = 20
100 = 18
200 = 12
300 = 8
400 = 5
500 = 3
(if you are infinitely better you will gain 0 (and stand to lose 50))
An interesting side effect of the equation is that if 100 players are on the ladder, they all stay active and no one else joins them, their ranking points will always sum to the same amount even as some players drop and others gain in rank.
However every time a newbie joins the ladder, plays one game and then quits, he essentially "feeds" 125 points into the ladder (25 to each of his five opponents, who then trade them around the active portion of the ladder). This means ladder scores will slowly rise over time.
This isn't a bad thing as points will still flow to the best active players. Actually it is a good thing since you cannot get a great ranking, then quit the ladder to "protect" your position. The ladder will always reflect who the best player is among those who are still active and playing.
tl;dr: Kinda genius. :D
On the left is YOUR score minus the enemy's AVERAGE score. On the right is the amount of points you will GAIN if you win.
The amount of points you will DROP if you lose is just whatever number will make the two add up to 50. (For example if you could win 30 points, you could lose 20).
(if you are infinitely worse than the enemy you will gain 50 points (and stand to lose 0))
-500 = 47
-400 = 45
-300 = 42
-200 = 38
-100 = 32
-75 = 30
-50 = 28
-25 = 27
-10 = 26
0 = 25
10 = 24
25 = 23
50 = 21
75 = 20
100 = 18
200 = 12
300 = 8
400 = 5
500 = 3
(if you are infinitely better you will gain 0 (and stand to lose 50))
An interesting side effect of the equation is that if 100 players are on the ladder, they all stay active and no one else joins them, their ranking points will always sum to the same amount even as some players drop and others gain in rank.
However every time a newbie joins the ladder, plays one game and then quits, he essentially "feeds" 125 points into the ladder (25 to each of his five opponents, who then trade them around the active portion of the ladder). This means ladder scores will slowly rise over time.
This isn't a bad thing as points will still flow to the best active players. Actually it is a good thing since you cannot get a great ranking, then quit the ladder to "protect" your position. The ladder will always reflect who the best player is among those who are still active and playing.
tl;dr: Kinda genius. :D
Sarah Palin
01-22-2010, 01:26 AM
Edit conflict with eso :) reading his post, he makes a good point and the change he recommends would not remove the benefits of the current system that I pointed out.
nesnl
01-22-2010, 01:31 AM
I was the one who was "in charge" of coming up with the equations for the rating system. There are obvious issues with adapting the Elo system, which was designed for 1v1, to a team based game. The problem of averaging a player's teams rating and then using that to adjust the rating is that everyone will gain/lose the same amount of points. This will allow high ranked players to continually inflate their rating by virtue of this function.
The idea behind the way it currently works is to view the game as if it were all 1v1s. This is accomplished by averaging the rating of the opposing team first rather than computing 5 "1v1" match ups and then dividing by 5. Just think of it as if Player 1 on Team A played a 1v1 vs. Player 1 on Team B, Player 2, 3, 4, and 5 and then that final point gain/lose was divided by 5. I know this isn't an ideal way of doing things, but I don't think anyone has come up with anything better out there (trust me I searched the web). Most games that have team based play modes that also use a personal rating system use a system either the same or similar to what we have implemented.
The idea behind the way it currently works is to view the game as if it were all 1v1s. This is accomplished by averaging the rating of the opposing team first rather than computing 5 "1v1" match ups and then dividing by 5. Just think of it as if Player 1 on Team A played a 1v1 vs. Player 1 on Team B, Player 2, 3, 4, and 5 and then that final point gain/lose was divided by 5. I know this isn't an ideal way of doing things, but I don't think anyone has come up with anything better out there (trust me I searched the web). Most games that have team based play modes that also use a personal rating system use a system either the same or similar to what we have implemented.
Esoteric
01-22-2010, 01:33 AM
Ya Sarah, as currently implemented the system isn't even a zero-sum system.
Example:
Player A 1500 and Player B 2300 play against two 1500s.
The 1500s win!
Player A loses 50*(1/2), Player B loses 50*(100/101)
The 1500s gain 50*(10/11) each.
Total loss= -74.2574257
Total gain= 90.9090909
Example:
Player A 1500 and Player B 2300 play against two 1500s.
The 1500s win!
Player A loses 50*(1/2), Player B loses 50*(100/101)
The 1500s gain 50*(10/11) each.
Total loss= -74.2574257
Total gain= 90.9090909
nesnl
01-22-2010, 01:37 AM
However every time a newbie joins the ladder, plays one game and then quits, he essentially "feeds" 125 points into the ladder (25 to each of his five opponents, who then trade them around the active portion of the ladder). This means ladder scores will slowly rise over time.
This is mostly correct except for the number. A player playing against an team with an averaged rating equal to his will either gain/lose 25 points. You make the mistake in assuming that each player gets 25 points, but in reality each player is only getting a percentage of those points.
If 5 1500 ranked players play 5 1500 ranked players. 5 will end up at 1475 and 5 at 1525. That means that each player either gave up or received 5 points from his opponents.
The premise is correct if you assume that most newbies that play their first ladder game are going to lose. However, looking at the ladder right now there are roughly equal amounts who are 1-0 as compared to 0-1 (14 are 1-0 and 17 are 0-1). So as a result their effects are almost zero sum. At this point if none of them played again then 75 points total were "fed" into the ladder. Not that big of a deal.
This is mostly correct except for the number. A player playing against an team with an averaged rating equal to his will either gain/lose 25 points. You make the mistake in assuming that each player gets 25 points, but in reality each player is only getting a percentage of those points.
If 5 1500 ranked players play 5 1500 ranked players. 5 will end up at 1475 and 5 at 1525. That means that each player either gave up or received 5 points from his opponents.
The premise is correct if you assume that most newbies that play their first ladder game are going to lose. However, looking at the ladder right now there are roughly equal amounts who are 1-0 as compared to 0-1 (14 are 1-0 and 17 are 0-1). So as a result their effects are almost zero sum. At this point if none of them played again then 75 points total were "fed" into the ladder. Not that big of a deal.
Sarah Palin
01-22-2010, 01:39 AM
The problem of averaging a player's teams rating and then using that to adjust the rating is that everyone will gain/lose the same amount of points. This will allow high ranked players to continually inflate their rating by virtue of this function.
Hmm, good point. A pro player could just play with a newb team against a newb team and gain 15-20ish points every time (not infinitely - eventually his score would be so huge and weight the average so much, that the exponential score curve would start to kick in again).
Ya Sarah, as currently implemented the system isn't even a zero-sum system.
Example:
Player A 1500 and Player B 2300 play against two 1500s.
The 1500s win!
Player A loses 50*(1/2), Player B loses 50*(100/101)
The 1500s gain 50*(10/11) each.
Total loss= -74.2574257
Total gain= 90.9090909
Eso, that's because the current system doesn't work for 2v2s, only 5v5. I suspect the "400" in the equation has something to do with this.
For 5v5s, the sum of pre game scores will be the same as the sum of post game scores, I'm almost certain.
Hmm, good point. A pro player could just play with a newb team against a newb team and gain 15-20ish points every time (not infinitely - eventually his score would be so huge and weight the average so much, that the exponential score curve would start to kick in again).
Ya Sarah, as currently implemented the system isn't even a zero-sum system.
Example:
Player A 1500 and Player B 2300 play against two 1500s.
The 1500s win!
Player A loses 50*(1/2), Player B loses 50*(100/101)
The 1500s gain 50*(10/11) each.
Total loss= -74.2574257
Total gain= 90.9090909
Eso, that's because the current system doesn't work for 2v2s, only 5v5. I suspect the "400" in the equation has something to do with this.
For 5v5s, the sum of pre game scores will be the same as the sum of post game scores, I'm almost certain.
nesnl
01-22-2010, 02:19 AM
Ya Sarah, as currently implemented the system isn't even a zero-sum system.
Example:
Player A 1500 and Player B 2300 play against two 1500s.
The 1500s win!
Player A loses 50*(1/2), Player B loses 50*(100/101)
The 1500s gain 50*(10/11) each.
Total loss= -74.2574257
Total gain= 90.9090909
This was a problem that I think we thought might happen, but we never tested it mathematically to make sure it wasn't happening. We wrongly assumed that by averaging the opposing team that it would auto correct itself, but there were other factors we forgot to include.
We still have all the data saved for all the games. So I think we will end up having to switch over to the system I described above where it views the game as 25 individual duels. Who wants to break the news to nobodyhome about the extra coding?
Example:
Player A 1500 and Player B 2300 play against two 1500s.
The 1500s win!
Player A loses 50*(1/2), Player B loses 50*(100/101)
The 1500s gain 50*(10/11) each.
Total loss= -74.2574257
Total gain= 90.9090909
This was a problem that I think we thought might happen, but we never tested it mathematically to make sure it wasn't happening. We wrongly assumed that by averaging the opposing team that it would auto correct itself, but there were other factors we forgot to include.
We still have all the data saved for all the games. So I think we will end up having to switch over to the system I described above where it views the game as 25 individual duels. Who wants to break the news to nobodyhome about the extra coding?
Sarah Palin
01-22-2010, 02:39 AM
Eso is right apparently:
Team X: 1380, 1410, 1540, 1560, 1600 (avg 1498)
Team Y: 1200, 1300, 1450, 1560, 1580 (avg 1418)
Team Y wins. They gain a total of 148.48 points.
Team X loses 151.84 points.
It's a small error but it's there.
Team X: 1380, 1410, 1540, 1560, 1600 (avg 1498)
Team Y: 1200, 1300, 1450, 1560, 1580 (avg 1418)
Team Y wins. They gain a total of 148.48 points.
Team X loses 151.84 points.
It's a small error but it's there.
Pieface
01-22-2010, 02:53 AM
Just played a couple of games and the system so far is riveting. Using the balance teams function at the start makes the games generally more even, with a few exceptions. I definitely think the rating system could be improved a bit, but the work you guys have done so far is exceptional. I'm only 4-1 so far but can't wait for more!
As a small point, I'd love to see the person ranked first also displayed on the home page with their number of points. It seems that you're showing some of the more important stats prominently, but it would also be nice to have the highest ranked player shown there as well. Obviously it's pretty easy to just click the "Ladder" link on top, but this seems like it could be a good addition.
As a small point, I'd love to see the person ranked first also displayed on the home page with their number of points. It seems that you're showing some of the more important stats prominently, but it would also be nice to have the highest ranked player shown there as well. Obviously it's pretty easy to just click the "Ladder" link on top, but this seems like it could be a good addition.
porpus
01-22-2010, 02:53 AM
This was a problem that I think we thought might happen, but we never tested it mathematically to make sure it wasn't happening. We wrongly assumed that by averaging the opposing team that it would auto correct itself, but there were other factors we forgot to include.
We still have all the data saved for all the games. So I think we will end up having to switch over to the system I described above where it views the game as 25 individual duels. Who wants to break the news to nobodyhome about the extra coding?
I think it's necessary though. If the rankings aren't 0 sum then they will be quickly exploited too the point where 3/4ths of the players are over 2k.
We still have all the data saved for all the games. So I think we will end up having to switch over to the system I described above where it views the game as 25 individual duels. Who wants to break the news to nobodyhome about the extra coding?
I think it's necessary though. If the rankings aren't 0 sum then they will be quickly exploited too the point where 3/4ths of the players are over 2k.
nobodyhome
01-22-2010, 03:00 AM
Who wants to break the news to nobodyhome about the extra coding?
ASLJASKDFJLKLAD!!
Anyways, eso makes a good point that the current system makes it so you are encouraged to play with people higher ranked than you (and you lose nothing by doing so). Furthermore, it encourages higher ranked people to stick with other higher ranked people (because when you win, your teammates' scores aren't taken into account).
Let's take a look at the options.
Here's eso's system:
E = 1 / [1 + 10^ ([(Avg rating of the opponents of Player 1)-(Avg rating of player 1 and player 1's team)] / 400)]
The pro is that people are rewarded for playing with lower ranked teammates (if they win). The con is that in a win, everybody on your team gets the same score. This may not necessarily be desirable, since it somewhat assumes that everybody on the team contributed equally (which as we know, is not the case. Higher rated players definitely contribute more to the team than lower rated players).
Maimer's proposed system: 25 1v1's, 5 1v1's calculated between you and every member of the opposing team. This one to me seems to suffer from the same problems as the first. Although at least this one is zero sum, your teammate's ratings aren't taken into account when calculating your gain. Thus, you have the same incentive to play with solely higher-ranked players.
Given no better options, I would like to put my vote in favor of eso's system, and perhaps have some way to distribute the points in a spread that rewards the bigger contributers (i.e. the higher rated players) in a win. Thus, we would use eso's system to determine the points given to an individual player, multiply that by 5, and then redistribute the points unevenly.
ASLJASKDFJLKLAD!!
Anyways, eso makes a good point that the current system makes it so you are encouraged to play with people higher ranked than you (and you lose nothing by doing so). Furthermore, it encourages higher ranked people to stick with other higher ranked people (because when you win, your teammates' scores aren't taken into account).
Let's take a look at the options.
Here's eso's system:
E = 1 / [1 + 10^ ([(Avg rating of the opponents of Player 1)-(Avg rating of player 1 and player 1's team)] / 400)]
The pro is that people are rewarded for playing with lower ranked teammates (if they win). The con is that in a win, everybody on your team gets the same score. This may not necessarily be desirable, since it somewhat assumes that everybody on the team contributed equally (which as we know, is not the case. Higher rated players definitely contribute more to the team than lower rated players).
Maimer's proposed system: 25 1v1's, 5 1v1's calculated between you and every member of the opposing team. This one to me seems to suffer from the same problems as the first. Although at least this one is zero sum, your teammate's ratings aren't taken into account when calculating your gain. Thus, you have the same incentive to play with solely higher-ranked players.
Given no better options, I would like to put my vote in favor of eso's system, and perhaps have some way to distribute the points in a spread that rewards the bigger contributers (i.e. the higher rated players) in a win. Thus, we would use eso's system to determine the points given to an individual player, multiply that by 5, and then redistribute the points unevenly.
Sarah Palin
01-22-2010, 03:29 AM
OK I have an additional proposal.
First, calculate the game as a simple 1v1 between two "fictitious" players A and B whose score is the sum of the team's score. This would be zero sum, with one of the teams gaining X and the other -X (with X->250 as teams are more even).
Then, in step two, X will be split up AMONG a team's members according to a weighting scheme.
This seems like it would be easier to program than a series of 1v1s and would ensure zero-sum in the first step.
Not sure about the weighting scheme though. It seems obvious that in the case of victory the higher ranked players should get more points. What about in case of defeat...
First, calculate the game as a simple 1v1 between two "fictitious" players A and B whose score is the sum of the team's score. This would be zero sum, with one of the teams gaining X and the other -X (with X->250 as teams are more even).
Then, in step two, X will be split up AMONG a team's members according to a weighting scheme.
This seems like it would be easier to program than a series of 1v1s and would ensure zero-sum in the first step.
Not sure about the weighting scheme though. It seems obvious that in the case of victory the higher ranked players should get more points. What about in case of defeat...
jeppew
01-22-2010, 04:05 AM
actually giving more points to the higher ranked people just awards you for playing in games below your rank. If you play with noobs against noobs the game will award you more points for beating the players below your rank. Like this extremly likely scenario:
1450, 1450, 1450, 1450, 1700
vs
1500, 1500, 1500, 1500, 1500
here the average rating is equal on each team, if the first team wins with their high skilled player he will be awarded alot of points for beating people below his rank.
1450, 1450, 1450, 1450, 1700
vs
1500, 1500, 1500, 1500, 1500
here the average rating is equal on each team, if the first team wins with their high skilled player he will be awarded alot of points for beating people below his rank.
Esoteric
01-22-2010, 04:24 AM
The beauty of ELO is that it's based simply on the odds of each player/team winning. It's purely based on that, not a system of reward/punishment based on how much players contributed. If someone has a higher rating that means they're expected to do more. That's why they have a higher rating...because they do more. If they did less, they would have (and will have) a lower rating.
The goal is to get people the the right score for their skill level and then...stop there. This isn't a system where you keep on "leveling up" because of your efforts. If you want a system like that, look elsewhere (or reduce the penalty for losing so it's no longer zero-sum.)
The ideal system leaves you ambivalent about the makeup of your team. If the rest of your team is ****ty, no problem, the system accounts for that. If you stacked your team like mad--no problem, it accounts for that too. If you want to appear to "reward" top players more you can toss some pretty system on top of the ELO to make them feel special. ELO isn't about who did the most--it's about who did better than expected.
This all, of course, depends on an accurate calculation of "Team ELO"
Currently they are a direct average.
Team ELO = Avg Rating
If you feel that a pro/newb jumping into an average team is more advantageous than a direct average, you could try something along the lines of:
Team ELO = Avg Rating+StdDev(Team's Ratings)/4.
If you feel that a pro jumping into an average team is more advantageous than a direct average but a newb jumping in is more disadvantageous you could modify the team's ELO by the third moment around the mean (or skewness*stddev.)
Team ELO = Avg Rating+u3(Team's Ratings)/4
Or if you feel that pros are more advantageous but newbs are accounted for roughly correctly you do both.
Team ELO = Avg Rating+StdDev(Team's Ratings)/8 + u3(Team's Ratings.)/4
*I used the population mean for easy numbers. I can provide pseudocode for nobo if you like any of these schemes. Note that, though the calculation is more complex, it only needs to be done once per game--it's more elegant than it appears.
Here's some example teams and several ways of rating their Team ELO. Every single game, assuming players are at their "correct" ranking, should have a neutral expectation. What rating system seems most accurate? Describe something to me and I'll make a mathematical model of it for you. But don't make a system where people want to be in certain types of games but not others based on the scoring system.
The goal is to get people the the right score for their skill level and then...stop there. This isn't a system where you keep on "leveling up" because of your efforts. If you want a system like that, look elsewhere (or reduce the penalty for losing so it's no longer zero-sum.)
The ideal system leaves you ambivalent about the makeup of your team. If the rest of your team is ****ty, no problem, the system accounts for that. If you stacked your team like mad--no problem, it accounts for that too. If you want to appear to "reward" top players more you can toss some pretty system on top of the ELO to make them feel special. ELO isn't about who did the most--it's about who did better than expected.
This all, of course, depends on an accurate calculation of "Team ELO"
Currently they are a direct average.
Team ELO = Avg Rating
If you feel that a pro/newb jumping into an average team is more advantageous than a direct average, you could try something along the lines of:
Team ELO = Avg Rating+StdDev(Team's Ratings)/4.
If you feel that a pro jumping into an average team is more advantageous than a direct average but a newb jumping in is more disadvantageous you could modify the team's ELO by the third moment around the mean (or skewness*stddev.)
Team ELO = Avg Rating+u3(Team's Ratings)/4
Or if you feel that pros are more advantageous but newbs are accounted for roughly correctly you do both.
Team ELO = Avg Rating+StdDev(Team's Ratings)/8 + u3(Team's Ratings.)/4
*I used the population mean for easy numbers. I can provide pseudocode for nobo if you like any of these schemes. Note that, though the calculation is more complex, it only needs to be done once per game--it's more elegant than it appears.
Here's some example teams and several ways of rating their Team ELO. Every single game, assuming players are at their "correct" ranking, should have a neutral expectation. What rating system seems most accurate? Describe something to me and I'll make a mathematical model of it for you. But don't make a system where people want to be in certain types of games but not others based on the scoring system.
Esoteric
01-22-2010, 04:26 AM
And here's a chart. Votes on what type of system seems the best estimation of Team ELO?
Sarah Palin
01-22-2010, 06:12 AM
Look at it like this: 16, 16, 16, 16, 16 vs. 11, 11, 11, 11, 36? I know I'd be betting on the first team. That one clutch veteran can't be everywhere at once.
I agree with Eso that a team's true ELO is more than the average. One really bad noob can ruin a team, but one semi-noob can't hurt it too much. One good pro can help a team, but he can't win by himself even if he's a REALLY good pro.
I agree with Eso that a team's true ELO is more than the average. One really bad noob can ruin a team, but one semi-noob can't hurt it too much. One good pro can help a team, but he can't win by himself even if he's a REALLY good pro.
Triped
01-22-2010, 06:19 AM
Look at it like this: 16, 16, 16, 16, 16 vs. 11, 11, 11, 11, 36? I know I'd be betting on the first team. That one clutch veteran can't be everywhere at once.
I don't know. Have you seen Mikesol run bombs on asteroids? ;)
I think that for now, the ladder should calculate using multiple methods. Perhaps show them both on a separate page for people who care. After enough people play, it will become clear what actually works well and then the official ladder can use that method if it is not already.
I don't know. Have you seen Mikesol run bombs on asteroids? ;)
I think that for now, the ladder should calculate using multiple methods. Perhaps show them both on a separate page for people who care. After enough people play, it will become clear what actually works well and then the official ladder can use that method if it is not already.
Sarah Palin
01-22-2010, 06:43 AM
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/default.aspx
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/details.aspx
This is a Bayesian generalization of ELO that can infer individual skill from team performance... created by Microsoft for XBox.
Looks complicated and I'm struggling to understand it, but it shares with ELO the characteristic that over time a player's score will gravitate towards a settled number that defines their probability of contributing to a team win.
The problem of extracting individual performance from team performance is thornier than I first realized.
Overall however, don't take my discussion of this as a rejection of the ladder, I think it works just fine for now... the players who win more games, and more challenging games, are near to the top.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/details.aspx
This is a Bayesian generalization of ELO that can infer individual skill from team performance... created by Microsoft for XBox.
Looks complicated and I'm struggling to understand it, but it shares with ELO the characteristic that over time a player's score will gravitate towards a settled number that defines their probability of contributing to a team win.
The problem of extracting individual performance from team performance is thornier than I first realized.
Overall however, don't take my discussion of this as a rejection of the ladder, I think it works just fine for now... the players who win more games, and more challenging games, are near to the top.
Beagle
01-22-2010, 06:45 AM
Awesome work guys, but individual stats for a PuG 5v5 format seems kind of wierd. Seems to be all luck of who gets the good team.
Why is there no 1v1 Ladder? That seems like a great use for the system. Or factor in individual stuff into the stats - bomb drops, ratio, etc.
Why is there no 1v1 Ladder? That seems like a great use for the system. Or factor in individual stuff into the stats - bomb drops, ratio, etc.
GGQ
01-22-2010, 06:51 AM
The idea is that if everyone plays enough games on the ladder, the random factor of who gets a stronger team will be normalized. You can't get unlucky forever.
Sarah Palin
01-22-2010, 07:00 AM
http://atom.research.microsoft.com/trueskill/rankcalculator.aspx
This looks like just what you want (only 5v5). Select game mode "2 large teams" and draw probability 0%.
Mu is your skill rating (0-50) and Sigma is the standard deviation (high for newbies, goes down as you play more games and the system is more certain of your skill rating). I fiddled around with some of Eso's scenarios.
The system calculates the probability of either team winning based on the skills of each player (and how certain it is about them). If the underdog team loses then everyone's sigma uncertainty goes down, as the system predicted the outcome.
If the underdogs win then everyone's sigma appears to go up (that makes sense, the current rating for each player didn't predict the game's outcome) and the underdogs get a large rating boost while the team expected to win loses rating. It all seems to make very good intuitive sense.
Matchmaking would be straightforward, just try to balance the sum of mus (basically the same as balancing the sum of ELOs on the current ladder).
This looks like just what you want (only 5v5). Select game mode "2 large teams" and draw probability 0%.
Mu is your skill rating (0-50) and Sigma is the standard deviation (high for newbies, goes down as you play more games and the system is more certain of your skill rating). I fiddled around with some of Eso's scenarios.
The system calculates the probability of either team winning based on the skills of each player (and how certain it is about them). If the underdog team loses then everyone's sigma uncertainty goes down, as the system predicted the outcome.
If the underdogs win then everyone's sigma appears to go up (that makes sense, the current rating for each player didn't predict the game's outcome) and the underdogs get a large rating boost while the team expected to win loses rating. It all seems to make very good intuitive sense.
Matchmaking would be straightforward, just try to balance the sum of mus (basically the same as balancing the sum of ELOs on the current ladder).
DiogenesDog
01-22-2010, 08:14 AM
On accuracy: I've seen a lot of ladder systems based on ELO or GLICKO or TrueSkill or whatever, and they all have one thing in common: they're terrible at showing who the actual best players are. And I think that's fine!
I mean, in a perfect world they'd all be great at it, and it doesn't hurt to strive for that goal, but meh. I think they all do the job of being good enough at what they do to get people playing more seriously and having fun striving for the best rank they can get.
Anyway, mostly just wanted to say that you guys shouldn't be surprised if you struggle for a long time with this. And also that I'd personally rather have some cool new ladder feature (automatch! party system! whatever!) rather than a lot of small incremental improvements in the rating system.
or actually, some servers closer to europe would be nice. :D
I mean, in a perfect world they'd all be great at it, and it doesn't hurt to strive for that goal, but meh. I think they all do the job of being good enough at what they do to get people playing more seriously and having fun striving for the best rank they can get.
Anyway, mostly just wanted to say that you guys shouldn't be surprised if you struggle for a long time with this. And also that I'd personally rather have some cool new ladder feature (automatch! party system! whatever!) rather than a lot of small incremental improvements in the rating system.
or actually, some servers closer to europe would be nice. :D
Smushface
01-22-2010, 08:33 AM
Regardless of what the balancing / rating system is, this is a great addition to Altitude. Now I can find good 5v5 fairly balanced tbd games at most hours of the day. Props.
NomNom
01-22-2010, 08:37 AM
Is there a ping cap?
nesnl
01-22-2010, 08:49 AM
Just a quick update. We are taking into account a few different possibilities of what the system that will be used to calculate rating. I think the important part is getting it zero sum and then working from there. While the changes may not happen immediately and you may feel that playing with certain people at this point might not be advantageous to your score, know that we have all of the games records stored safely on our servers and when we do switch the scoring system we will just pump all that data through the new system and all the games will be recorded and that under the new system the effect of playing with a worse team will either be removed or minimized as much as possible. So keep on playing and don't worry so much right now about what games are going to make your PSR go up/down based on the team make up.
To answer BG1, there is no ping cap currently. The reason I set it like this is because I didn't want people to have the problem of getting ping kicked because that not only hurts them but obviously hurts the team they are playing with. I figured people could view other players pings prior to starting a game and make the assessment of whether they wanted to play with them prior to starting the match.
In response to Dio, I would love this to become a much larger scale and incorporate many servers for many different locations. However, we only have about 150 people on the ladder right now. Let's wait and see how it all works out and then maybe we can figure out some additional server options.
To answer BG1, there is no ping cap currently. The reason I set it like this is because I didn't want people to have the problem of getting ping kicked because that not only hurts them but obviously hurts the team they are playing with. I figured people could view other players pings prior to starting a game and make the assessment of whether they wanted to play with them prior to starting the match.
In response to Dio, I would love this to become a much larger scale and incorporate many servers for many different locations. However, we only have about 150 people on the ladder right now. Let's wait and see how it all works out and then maybe we can figure out some additional server options.
tec27
01-22-2010, 08:51 AM
There's some routing issue between southwestern Virginia and these servers right now. Now what am I going to do at 4AM? :(
NomNom
01-22-2010, 09:06 AM
Just a quick update. We are taking into account a few different possibilities of what the system that will be used to calculate rating. I think the important part is getting it zero sum and then working from there. While the changes may not happen immediately and you may feel that playing with certain people at this point might not be advantageous to your score, know that we have all of the games records stored safely on our servers and when we do switch the scoring system we will just pump all that data through the new system and all the games will be recorded and that under the new system the effect of playing with a worse team will either be removed or minimized as much as possible. So keep on playing and don't worry so much right now about what games are going to make your PSR go up/down based on the team make up.
To answer BG1, there is no ping cap currently. The reason I set it like this is because I didn't want people to have the problem of getting ping kicked because that not only hurts them but obviously hurts the team they are playing with. I figured people could view other players pings prior to starting a game and make the assessment of whether they wanted to play with them prior to starting the match.
In response to Dio, I would love this to become a much larger scale and incorporate many servers for many different locations. However, we only have about 150 people on the ladder right now. Let's wait and see how it all works out and then maybe we can figure out some additional server options.
Well as far as I see it the main reason to do this ladder is to promote competitive play. It's nice that after half a year people finally realized how dumb the 7v7s are and are starting to play 5v5, that's a step in the right direction.
However to make it truly competitive you can't have people with over 200 ping or with spikes playing the game because that just makes it a luckfest of bombs going through, getting shot behind walls etc... Which is kind of what you're trying to get away from I assume.
Yes the community is small but you can leave one server with no cap and one with, so people can choose.
Also you can put a level cap cause no one under 60 will get to play anyways, might as well prevent them from clogging up the servers.
To answer BG1, there is no ping cap currently. The reason I set it like this is because I didn't want people to have the problem of getting ping kicked because that not only hurts them but obviously hurts the team they are playing with. I figured people could view other players pings prior to starting a game and make the assessment of whether they wanted to play with them prior to starting the match.
In response to Dio, I would love this to become a much larger scale and incorporate many servers for many different locations. However, we only have about 150 people on the ladder right now. Let's wait and see how it all works out and then maybe we can figure out some additional server options.
Well as far as I see it the main reason to do this ladder is to promote competitive play. It's nice that after half a year people finally realized how dumb the 7v7s are and are starting to play 5v5, that's a step in the right direction.
However to make it truly competitive you can't have people with over 200 ping or with spikes playing the game because that just makes it a luckfest of bombs going through, getting shot behind walls etc... Which is kind of what you're trying to get away from I assume.
Yes the community is small but you can leave one server with no cap and one with, so people can choose.
Also you can put a level cap cause no one under 60 will get to play anyways, might as well prevent them from clogging up the servers.
Beagle
01-22-2010, 09:32 AM
However to make it truly competitive you can't have people with over 200 ping or with spikes playing the game because that just makes it a luckfest of bombs going through, getting shot behind walls etc... Which is kind of what you're trying to get away from I assume.
I'd like to take this as an opportunity to tell Maimer and all the ladder guys how much I appreciate there not being a ping cap.
Also, wanted to reiterate I think this is great, I was just voicing my concerns on the stats thing.
I'd like to take this as an opportunity to tell Maimer and all the ladder guys how much I appreciate there not being a ping cap.
Also, wanted to reiterate I think this is great, I was just voicing my concerns on the stats thing.
DryBone
01-22-2010, 09:45 AM
so much awesome stuff while i wasn't on the forum! :O
AWESOME xD
AWESOME xD
Stormich
01-22-2010, 09:56 AM
I don't mind ping, I would however prefer if players with huge ping not bomb. Also I don't have much against ping, what I do dislike is people with spikes. Spikes are a lot worse than someone with a flatlined high ping.
eth
01-22-2010, 10:51 AM
Awesome work guys, but individual stats for a PuG 5v5 format seems kind of wierd. Seems to be all luck of who gets the good team.
Why is there no 1v1 Ladder? That seems like a great use for the system. Or factor in individual stuff into the stats - bomb drops, ratio, etc.
There is no duel ladder currently because we don't want to spread the already small playerbase even thinner - if our 5v5 TBD turns out a success, ball and duel will be added. Also, we can't factor individual stats at the moment as the server logs don't tell us who bombed, what ratios are, kills, experience and those sorts of things.
In response to Dio, you'll hopefully see both. We're gonna take a look at the rating system the next week, and we'll be adding autobalance hopefully the coming week/week after that as well. And in addition to that the website has a lot of **** on the to-do(such as sorting, a map-stats page, more stats on profile etc) list that'll be coming concurrently with this other stuff.
Why is there no 1v1 Ladder? That seems like a great use for the system. Or factor in individual stuff into the stats - bomb drops, ratio, etc.
There is no duel ladder currently because we don't want to spread the already small playerbase even thinner - if our 5v5 TBD turns out a success, ball and duel will be added. Also, we can't factor individual stats at the moment as the server logs don't tell us who bombed, what ratios are, kills, experience and those sorts of things.
In response to Dio, you'll hopefully see both. We're gonna take a look at the rating system the next week, and we'll be adding autobalance hopefully the coming week/week after that as well. And in addition to that the website has a lot of **** on the to-do(such as sorting, a map-stats page, more stats on profile etc) list that'll be coming concurrently with this other stuff.
ORYLY
01-22-2010, 12:11 PM
I don't mind ping, I would however prefer if players with huge ping not bomb. Also I don't have much against ping, what I do dislike is people with spikes. Spikes are a lot worse than someone with a flatlined high ping.Yep, I try not to grab the bomb from the spawn. If you play with high ping, all bombs from other players are lagbombs and you know how much it sucks to deal with them.
Evan20000
01-22-2010, 01:31 PM
There is no duel ladder currently because we don't want to spread the already small playerbase even thinner - if our 5v5 TBD turns out a success, ball and duel will be added. Also, we can't factor individual stats at the moment as the server logs don't tell us who bombed, what ratios are, kills, experience and those sorts of things.
So you mean my beautiful 4:1 game last night wasn't recorded? D:
Anyway, I'm glad changes are being made to stabilize the servers. Is there anyway to prevent a player from bombing when they have over X ping?
So you mean my beautiful 4:1 game last night wasn't recorded? D:
Anyway, I'm glad changes are being made to stabilize the servers. Is there anyway to prevent a player from bombing when they have over X ping?
Sarah Palin
01-22-2010, 02:23 PM
OK im starting to see major issues with the current equation.
My rank is fluctuating wildly based on whether I recently won or lost. I was up to #11 last night after I won 4 in a row, I logged off tonight after losing a few games with top ladder players and I'm all the way down to #97, and I'll be back up to the teens after I play some newb games tomorrow afternoon.
The fact that the formula has no way to keep track of the uncertainty of a player's skill (or to narrow that uncertainty over time), means the scores will randomly track all over the place.
Even a perfectly average player, such as tec27 who has a 16-15 record and 1525 score right now, has seen his score fluctuate hundreds of points during each gaming session.
Someone who has 100 wins 50 losses, having played against a wide sample of the ladder, should see their score fluctuate MUCH LESS than someone who has 20 wins 10 losses. Major changes in their score should only happen when they play against other players who also have very low uncertainties in their ranking, and the underdog wins, because that proves the current ratings are wrong. But if the expected player wins in a matchup between two players the ranking system is very confident in assigning scores to, that proves the current ratings are RIGHT and players should NOT see large point gains or losses.
Since the ELO system has no metric for confidence, there's no way to distinguish tec's 16-15 rating from my 10-11 rating from some newb's 2-2 rating.
When everyone's score is doing a random walk, a standard deviation or more around their true skill level, the rating at any given point in time has very little information.
Let me point out this is the case for average players as well as players on either extreme of the ladder, because the sum of the potential gain and potential loss for your next game, no matter where you are on the ladder, is 50 points.
I think the TrueSkill system is worth a look. Dunno how challenging it would be to code however.
My rank is fluctuating wildly based on whether I recently won or lost. I was up to #11 last night after I won 4 in a row, I logged off tonight after losing a few games with top ladder players and I'm all the way down to #97, and I'll be back up to the teens after I play some newb games tomorrow afternoon.
The fact that the formula has no way to keep track of the uncertainty of a player's skill (or to narrow that uncertainty over time), means the scores will randomly track all over the place.
Even a perfectly average player, such as tec27 who has a 16-15 record and 1525 score right now, has seen his score fluctuate hundreds of points during each gaming session.
Someone who has 100 wins 50 losses, having played against a wide sample of the ladder, should see their score fluctuate MUCH LESS than someone who has 20 wins 10 losses. Major changes in their score should only happen when they play against other players who also have very low uncertainties in their ranking, and the underdog wins, because that proves the current ratings are wrong. But if the expected player wins in a matchup between two players the ranking system is very confident in assigning scores to, that proves the current ratings are RIGHT and players should NOT see large point gains or losses.
Since the ELO system has no metric for confidence, there's no way to distinguish tec's 16-15 rating from my 10-11 rating from some newb's 2-2 rating.
When everyone's score is doing a random walk, a standard deviation or more around their true skill level, the rating at any given point in time has very little information.
Let me point out this is the case for average players as well as players on either extreme of the ladder, because the sum of the potential gain and potential loss for your next game, no matter where you are on the ladder, is 50 points.
I think the TrueSkill system is worth a look. Dunno how challenging it would be to code however.
DiogenesDog
01-22-2010, 02:52 PM
Might be worth looking into the TrueSkill system that Microsoft uses for XBox matchmaking if you're worried about the confidence issue. I believe they do some stuff to address this.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/details.aspx
It's ELO-based, but has some tweaks to deal with the common complaints of gamers.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/details.aspx
It's ELO-based, but has some tweaks to deal with the common complaints of gamers.
eth
01-22-2010, 04:10 PM
Sarah Palin like I said, we'll be taking a look at it but not until the next week. Also, your insane rank fluctuation has more to do with the extremely small playerbase right now. 150 players with a point discrepancy of what, 400? makes rank fluctuate like that no matter what you do.
nach0king
01-23-2010, 12:20 AM
Level 60 only?
DiogenesDog
01-23-2010, 07:26 AM
Level 60 only?
heck no.
10 chars
heck no.
10 chars
Evan20000
01-23-2010, 04:04 PM
Level 60 only?
No, but you're much more likely to be picked to play if you're level 60.
No, but you're much more likely to be picked to play if you're level 60.
proggies
01-23-2010, 05:40 PM
Any plans to nominate admins for ladder servers?
It has been getting difficult to control the games lately when there are noobs or idiots that disrupt the game.
getting into teams can take forever when ppl refuse to cooperate...
vote kicking may be too much of a hassle when u have to do it many times
It has been getting difficult to control the games lately when there are noobs or idiots that disrupt the game.
getting into teams can take forever when ppl refuse to cooperate...
vote kicking may be too much of a hassle when u have to do it many times
protest boy
01-23-2010, 06:53 PM
Have you thought about using the New England viewscale/zoom on these servers? 110/95 or whatever it is?
Pieface
01-23-2010, 06:56 PM
Have you thought about using the New England viewscale/zoom on these servers? 110/95 or whatever it is?
YES YES YES. Also, you may be aware of this but the ladder column sorting system you have in effect at the moment doesn't seem to be working as it should. When you click the arrows next to the column headers, they do some sort of strange sorting instead of what you'd normally expect from toggling the arrows there.
YES YES YES. Also, you may be aware of this but the ladder column sorting system you have in effect at the moment doesn't seem to be working as it should. When you click the arrows next to the column headers, they do some sort of strange sorting instead of what you'd normally expect from toggling the arrows there.
CCN
01-23-2010, 07:02 PM
if the admin route is taken maybe some suggestions.
1. If they are found to abuse power (etc on map/team stacking) they get it removed.
2. Admins may be better if its the more quiet community members like proggies or Flight66.
my 2 cents
-CCN
1. If they are found to abuse power (etc on map/team stacking) they get it removed.
2. Admins may be better if its the more quiet community members like proggies or Flight66.
my 2 cents
-CCN
eth
01-23-2010, 07:07 PM
YES YES YES. Also, you may be aware of this but the ladder column sorting system you have in effect at the moment doesn't seem to be working as it should. When you click the arrows next to the column headers, they do some sort of strange sorting instead of what you'd normally expect from toggling the arrows there.
What is this strange effect? How does it work for you/could you send screenshots? It seems to be working perfectly for me.
What is this strange effect? How does it work for you/could you send screenshots? It seems to be working perfectly for me.
nesnl
01-23-2010, 07:15 PM
To answer a few questions:
The servers are currently set on minimum level 60. This was mainly implemented to prevent people creating demo accounts and then using them to feed points. Also, I would rather see people attain level 60 and be at least minimally confident in their abilities prior to joining the servers. However, I might change this in the future.
In regards to admins, we may look to add a few more admins in the future, but we are looking for all possible ways of reducing the affects of these kinds of people besides having to have an admin step in. If you are having problems with people currently, please take a screenshot of the problem and post it with a description of the problem so that we can see what's going on.
As for viewscale 110/95, I don't see this happening because since it is not the native viewscale of the game it creates odd artifact effect and image distortion with the graphics. I can imagine the problem happens to a lot of people. Also, since people are used to the standard viewscale, it would seem unfair to ask them to adjust to an entirely different viewscale while playing competitively.
The servers are currently set on minimum level 60. This was mainly implemented to prevent people creating demo accounts and then using them to feed points. Also, I would rather see people attain level 60 and be at least minimally confident in their abilities prior to joining the servers. However, I might change this in the future.
In regards to admins, we may look to add a few more admins in the future, but we are looking for all possible ways of reducing the affects of these kinds of people besides having to have an admin step in. If you are having problems with people currently, please take a screenshot of the problem and post it with a description of the problem so that we can see what's going on.
As for viewscale 110/95, I don't see this happening because since it is not the native viewscale of the game it creates odd artifact effect and image distortion with the graphics. I can imagine the problem happens to a lot of people. Also, since people are used to the standard viewscale, it would seem unfair to ask them to adjust to an entirely different viewscale while playing competitively.
Pieface
01-23-2010, 07:15 PM
Well, when I first get to the Ladder page everything is sorted fine (by rating or rank). However, the selected sorting arrow appears to be the Win/Loss column, and not the rating/rank column as you would expect. [See first attached image.]
When I click on the arrow next to the rating column, it sorts everyone in a strange way that appears to be by no logical order. [See second image.]
When I click that arrow again, it changes the sorting order to another one that has no logical explanation (as opposed to being sorted by best/worst rating as we'd expect). [See third image.]
This isn't only in the rating column, but happens for the other column sorting as well. The weird thing is it only happens when I use Safari as my browser, both Chrome and Firefox work fine.
Edit: Looking at it now, it appears that the Rating column is sorting it by name in Safari. The other columns are sorting it in a less logical way with no apparent pattern.
When I click on the arrow next to the rating column, it sorts everyone in a strange way that appears to be by no logical order. [See second image.]
When I click that arrow again, it changes the sorting order to another one that has no logical explanation (as opposed to being sorted by best/worst rating as we'd expect). [See third image.]
This isn't only in the rating column, but happens for the other column sorting as well. The weird thing is it only happens when I use Safari as my browser, both Chrome and Firefox work fine.
Edit: Looking at it now, it appears that the Rating column is sorting it by name in Safari. The other columns are sorting it in a less logical way with no apparent pattern.
eth
01-23-2010, 07:31 PM
I honestly have no idea what's at fault here - it's displaying correctly in both my Safari and Maimers Safari.. what version do you have? Also - if you could PM/mail me the source of the page as well as the URL for that page I could look into this a bit more. If you don't have the newest version of Safari, it might be worth a try updating to that.
edit: The URL should show something like ladder.php?sort=rank_d or sort=user_d.
edit: The URL should show something like ladder.php?sort=rank_d or sort=user_d.
as red as black
01-23-2010, 07:33 PM
need more admins!!!! It takes forever to start up games and it'd be oh so easy to just band the stupid people for like 5 minutes until the game gets started and there's no possibility of tomfoolery.
maybe put more admins, but give them limited power. like max ban = 10 minutes....
also.....is there anyway to get other stats up there like average base damage per game, average kills/deaths per game, etc?
maybe put more admins, but give them limited power. like max ban = 10 minutes....
also.....is there anyway to get other stats up there like average base damage per game, average kills/deaths per game, etc?
Pieface
01-23-2010, 07:41 PM
Well, that was stupid of me. The sorting's working fine, it's just that the arrows are appearing in the wrong places. So when I thought I was clicking on the rating arrow, I was actually clicking on the username arrow and so on.
I've attached the source code if that helps at all, but I guess it's only a minor problem. Safari is updated to the current version. URL's are available upon further request, though I'm thinking it's something strange with my Safari..
I've attached the source code if that helps at all, but I guess it's only a minor problem. Safari is updated to the current version. URL's are available upon further request, though I'm thinking it's something strange with my Safari..
nesnl
01-23-2010, 07:44 PM
need more admins!!!! It takes forever to start up games and it'd be oh so easy to just band the stupid people for like 5 minutes until the game gets started and there's no possibility of tomfoolery.
maybe put more admins, but give them limited power. like max ban = 10 minutes....
also.....is there anyway to get other stats up there like average base damage per game, average kills/deaths per game, etc?
We are considering adding more admins, but until then and even when we do, there will still be times when an admin is not around. Try to talk to the person and if it doesn't work just take a screenshot and let me know what's going on.
Currently, none of the stats besides which team won a game are displayed in the server logs. There may be addition of more stats in the future.
maybe put more admins, but give them limited power. like max ban = 10 minutes....
also.....is there anyway to get other stats up there like average base damage per game, average kills/deaths per game, etc?
We are considering adding more admins, but until then and even when we do, there will still be times when an admin is not around. Try to talk to the person and if it doesn't work just take a screenshot and let me know what's going on.
Currently, none of the stats besides which team won a game are displayed in the server logs. There may be addition of more stats in the future.
Pieface
01-23-2010, 07:46 PM
After doing a hard reset of Safari (emptying the cache, etc.) the arrows have returned to their proper places. Thanks for the support though, I'll let you know if anything else comes up.
combat
01-23-2010, 08:08 PM
if the admin route is taken maybe some suggestions.
1. If they are found to abuse power (etc on map/team stacking) they get it removed.
2. Admins may be better if its the more quiet community members like proggies or Flight66.
Agreed, games take about 10 minutes to get organized if there's more than 10 people in the server. I think more admins could help start games faster by being able to remove people who cause problems.
1. If they are found to abuse power (etc on map/team stacking) they get it removed.
2. Admins may be better if its the more quiet community members like proggies or Flight66.
Agreed, games take about 10 minutes to get organized if there's more than 10 people in the server. I think more admins could help start games faster by being able to remove people who cause problems.
Ferret
01-23-2010, 10:31 PM
As for viewscale 110/95, I don't see this happening because since it is not the native viewscale of the game it creates odd artifact effect and image distortion with the graphics. I can imagine the problem happens to a lot of people. Also, since people are used to the standard viewscale, it would seem unfair to ask them to adjust to an entirely different viewscale while playing competitively.
I agree, but most people were used to an overpowered and spammable remote mine and spammable miranda shot, can you find a way to restore these to the server? In fact I was really used to playing the game with no red perks and only a couple of green and blue ones, is there any way you can bring this game play back? There's been far too much change and improvement to this game and it's taken me way out of my comfort zone.
I've also never noticed any graphical problems unless you're just saying "it's not as pretty." Which, yea, but you can hold the swimsuit competition portion of the ladder on another server.
I agree, but most people were used to an overpowered and spammable remote mine and spammable miranda shot, can you find a way to restore these to the server? In fact I was really used to playing the game with no red perks and only a couple of green and blue ones, is there any way you can bring this game play back? There's been far too much change and improvement to this game and it's taken me way out of my comfort zone.
I've also never noticed any graphical problems unless you're just saying "it's not as pretty." Which, yea, but you can hold the swimsuit competition portion of the ladder on another server.
nesnl
01-23-2010, 11:54 PM
I agree, but most people were used to an overpowered and spammable remote mine and spammable miranda shot, can you find a way to restore these to the server? In fact I was really used to playing the game with no red perks and only a couple of green and blue ones, is there any way you can bring this game play back? There's been far too much change and improvement to this game and it's taken me way out of my comfort zone.
I've also never noticed any graphical problems unless you're just saying "it's not as pretty." Which, yea, but you can hold the swimsuit competition portion of the ladder on another server.
I think you misunderstood the content of my post, but then again, I think we are all used to you now having any kind of normal response but rather your posts have to contain pure sarcasm masked in some kind of superiority complex. So maybe you did understand and choose to respond this way on purpose.
Anyway, the purpose of my post was saying that I am not interested in splitting the game into different versions on different servers. This problem has been brought up many times for all the people who want to customize different things on their server. Sure, you can say people were used to a spammable remote mine, but that has changed, and not just on one server but throughout the entire game. You see, that is what you seemingly failed to grasp or purposely decided to ignore. What if we just decided to customize everything. You could guess at how powerful each weapon was when you joined a server, how fast each plane was, or even if they were going to have 10 times the health. This is the idea behind trying to keep certain things standard and applies just as well to planescale and viewscale.
I know that some of you guys who play on the New England Servers seem to think that just because you play at 110/95 that it must be better. Like you are somehow the experts on what is best for the game. Realize that you are the minority, that outside of those few servers every other game is played at the normal planescale and viewscale. If lamster and karl decide they want to adopt that standard then by all means I will accept it and we all can learn to play that way.
As for the artifacts and image distortion, you are welcome to sit there and pretend just because you don't have a problem that it must not be a problem for anyone else. For me it is like the monitor is set on a resolution that it doesn't support while at the same time it creates small ghosting of objects and planes as I move the screen around, which is most likely a result of the resolution issue (almost like pixels are trying to be in more than 1 place at the same time). But feel free to keep acting like whatever your screen looks like must be the case for everyone.
I've also never noticed any graphical problems unless you're just saying "it's not as pretty." Which, yea, but you can hold the swimsuit competition portion of the ladder on another server.
I think you misunderstood the content of my post, but then again, I think we are all used to you now having any kind of normal response but rather your posts have to contain pure sarcasm masked in some kind of superiority complex. So maybe you did understand and choose to respond this way on purpose.
Anyway, the purpose of my post was saying that I am not interested in splitting the game into different versions on different servers. This problem has been brought up many times for all the people who want to customize different things on their server. Sure, you can say people were used to a spammable remote mine, but that has changed, and not just on one server but throughout the entire game. You see, that is what you seemingly failed to grasp or purposely decided to ignore. What if we just decided to customize everything. You could guess at how powerful each weapon was when you joined a server, how fast each plane was, or even if they were going to have 10 times the health. This is the idea behind trying to keep certain things standard and applies just as well to planescale and viewscale.
I know that some of you guys who play on the New England Servers seem to think that just because you play at 110/95 that it must be better. Like you are somehow the experts on what is best for the game. Realize that you are the minority, that outside of those few servers every other game is played at the normal planescale and viewscale. If lamster and karl decide they want to adopt that standard then by all means I will accept it and we all can learn to play that way.
As for the artifacts and image distortion, you are welcome to sit there and pretend just because you don't have a problem that it must not be a problem for anyone else. For me it is like the monitor is set on a resolution that it doesn't support while at the same time it creates small ghosting of objects and planes as I move the screen around, which is most likely a result of the resolution issue (almost like pixels are trying to be in more than 1 place at the same time). But feel free to keep acting like whatever your screen looks like must be the case for everyone.
Snowsickle
01-24-2010, 02:03 AM
I'm going to toss in an additional vote for some kind of automatic team system. Either pure randomization (and let the ELO/ratings update to reflect whatever point difference exists -- we're going to need a better system like trueskill for this to be effective, I think) or some kind of elaborate team algorithm. It looks like plenty of people are interested in abusing the ladder already, spectating games and -- in the event of captains games -- they respond that they aren't playing unless the team in question has an astronomically high chance of winning. Given the current state of the system this is a very effective way of ensuring that you're ranked favorably.
Also, I feel like there needs to be some kind of preference to people who are actually interested in playing. Several times earlier, I was denied a spot in the server because 5-6 players "wanted to watch" but refused to be chosen to participate in a game. Given that the servers have been full almost every time I've been playing, and a number of players will constantly state that they don't want to play, I think its only fair to potential participants that there be some kind of system in place. The ladder is a fantastic opportunity for the community to move away from the elitism and circle-jerking that ran the pro leagues; I strongly suggest not playing favorites and allowing veteran players to waste spaces in the server because of their previous notoriety.
Also, I feel like there needs to be some kind of preference to people who are actually interested in playing. Several times earlier, I was denied a spot in the server because 5-6 players "wanted to watch" but refused to be chosen to participate in a game. Given that the servers have been full almost every time I've been playing, and a number of players will constantly state that they don't want to play, I think its only fair to potential participants that there be some kind of system in place. The ladder is a fantastic opportunity for the community to move away from the elitism and circle-jerking that ran the pro leagues; I strongly suggest not playing favorites and allowing veteran players to waste spaces in the server because of their previous notoriety.
ADA
01-24-2010, 02:08 AM
enjoying the ladder games good work guys :D
eth
01-24-2010, 02:17 AM
I'm going to toss in an additional vote for some kind of automatic team system. Either pure randomization (and let the ELO/ratings update to reflect whatever point difference exists -- we're going to need a better system like trueskill for this to be effective, I think) or some kind of elaborate team algorithm. It looks like plenty of people are interested in abusing the ladder already, spectating games and -- in the event of captains games -- they respond that they aren't playing unless the team in question has an astronomically high chance of winning. Given the current state of the system this is a very effective way of ensuring that you're ranked favorably.
Also, I feel like there needs to be some kind of preference to people who are actually interested in playing. Several times earlier, I was denied a spot in the server because 5-6 players "wanted to watch" but refused to be chosen to participate in a game.
We can't force people to do anything - we can't inject into altitude and then force Dude X onto red team and Dude Y onto blue team, so in the end you're just gonna have to deal with people. That said, autobalance will be in within a week or two as a system where you come to the website, see all players in the server listed, then you pick the players who are going to play and then the site autobalances said players. That is pretty much the best we can do for a while.
Also, we will try to set up a few admins in the coming days, which will help with moderating jackasses. If you're really desperate, join the IRC channel as one of us is usually online there, or send us a screenshot+complaint(altitudeladder@gmail.com).
Also, I feel like there needs to be some kind of preference to people who are actually interested in playing. Several times earlier, I was denied a spot in the server because 5-6 players "wanted to watch" but refused to be chosen to participate in a game.
We can't force people to do anything - we can't inject into altitude and then force Dude X onto red team and Dude Y onto blue team, so in the end you're just gonna have to deal with people. That said, autobalance will be in within a week or two as a system where you come to the website, see all players in the server listed, then you pick the players who are going to play and then the site autobalances said players. That is pretty much the best we can do for a while.
Also, we will try to set up a few admins in the coming days, which will help with moderating jackasses. If you're really desperate, join the IRC channel as one of us is usually online there, or send us a screenshot+complaint(altitudeladder@gmail.com).
Ferret
01-24-2010, 02:21 AM
I know that some of you guys who play on the New England Servers seem to think that just because you play at 110/95 that it must be better. Like you are somehow the experts on what is best for the game.
Hi, been 7-8 years in two different major versions of the game and several more minor iterations. So yes, I am "somehow" an expert.
And I don't think you understand what "notice" means. "Notice" means that while playing, I have never noticed anyone join and say they have graphical problems, or post in the thread about the new england servers on this forum that they have graphical problems. Your previous condescending post is the first report, ever, of a problem.
Hi, been 7-8 years in two different major versions of the game and several more minor iterations. So yes, I am "somehow" an expert.
And I don't think you understand what "notice" means. "Notice" means that while playing, I have never noticed anyone join and say they have graphical problems, or post in the thread about the new england servers on this forum that they have graphical problems. Your previous condescending post is the first report, ever, of a problem.
Snowsickle
01-24-2010, 02:30 AM
We can't force people to do anything - we can't inject into altitude and then force Dude X onto red team and Dude Y onto blue team, so in the end you're just gonna have to deal with people. That said, autobalance will be in within a week or two as a system where you come to the website, see all players in the server listed, then you pick the players who are going to play and then the site autobalances said players. That is pretty much the best we can do for a while.
I understand this, and I think this would be a great opportunity for Lamster to add some additional server admin functionality (assigning teams would be wonderful, I'm not even sure it was in my original server admin wishlist). However, I think there are approaches that would work. They aren't particularly elegant, but they would work.
Starttournament is called --> server looks at 10 players, runs a ladder-based balancing algorithm.
If players are on the appropriate teams, play continues. If not, the server calls stoptournament and encourages players to use the team balancing feature on the webpage.
This isn't elegant at all, and I understand that, but it's fairly close to having a legitimate matchmaker without the proper functionality to do so. If this is for some reason impossible given your implementation, correct me, but as I understand it, it should work once you guys come up with a balancing system.
Food for thought; I haven't actively been participating and don't see myself doing so seriously given some of the current issues, so do what you will.
I understand this, and I think this would be a great opportunity for Lamster to add some additional server admin functionality (assigning teams would be wonderful, I'm not even sure it was in my original server admin wishlist). However, I think there are approaches that would work. They aren't particularly elegant, but they would work.
Starttournament is called --> server looks at 10 players, runs a ladder-based balancing algorithm.
If players are on the appropriate teams, play continues. If not, the server calls stoptournament and encourages players to use the team balancing feature on the webpage.
This isn't elegant at all, and I understand that, but it's fairly close to having a legitimate matchmaker without the proper functionality to do so. If this is for some reason impossible given your implementation, correct me, but as I understand it, it should work once you guys come up with a balancing system.
Food for thought; I haven't actively been participating and don't see myself doing so seriously given some of the current issues, so do what you will.
eth
01-24-2010, 02:54 AM
The thing is, we don't have access to the game itself. We have access to the logs, and then what we do is based upon the logs _only_. That is why we need to go via the website for our autobalancing system, and maybe eventually build a clientside launcher that people could install and then display this info via an overlay. If eventually forcing people on teams becomes a reality, we may be able to build a bot, but I'm pretty sure we're gonna have to stick to the log->website way for now.
Not too sure about your last comment there? We are working as fast and as hard as we can to fix the current issues with rating system/AB, but we can't code 24/7.
Not too sure about your last comment there? We are working as fast and as hard as we can to fix the current issues with rating system/AB, but we can't code 24/7.
porpus
01-24-2010, 02:54 AM
We can't force people to do anything - we can't inject into altitude and then force Dude X onto red team and Dude Y onto blue team, so in the end you're just gonna have to deal with people. That said, autobalance will be in within a week or two as a system where you come to the website, see all players in the server listed, then you pick the players who are going to play and then the site autobalances said players. That is pretty much the best we can do for a while.
Also, we will try to set up a few admins in the coming days, which will help with moderating jackasses. If you're really desperate, join the IRC channel as one of us is usually online there, or send us a screenshot+complaint(altitudeladder@gmail.com).
At the very least, I would appreciate upping the player limit on these servers.
As for additional work with lamster, I believe that a great feature would be to allow a mode where people on the server could chose whether they want to be involved. Once a game is ready to begin 10 players could be chosen (randomly or otherwise) and then balanced. Surely this would be the only mode as people are going to want to play with set teams, but some sort of support would greatly speed up the time needed to plan these games.
Also, we will try to set up a few admins in the coming days, which will help with moderating jackasses. If you're really desperate, join the IRC channel as one of us is usually online there, or send us a screenshot+complaint(altitudeladder@gmail.com).
At the very least, I would appreciate upping the player limit on these servers.
As for additional work with lamster, I believe that a great feature would be to allow a mode where people on the server could chose whether they want to be involved. Once a game is ready to begin 10 players could be chosen (randomly or otherwise) and then balanced. Surely this would be the only mode as people are going to want to play with set teams, but some sort of support would greatly speed up the time needed to plan these games.
porpus
01-24-2010, 03:02 AM
I think you misunderstood the content of my post, but then again, I think we are all used to you now having any kind of normal response but rather your posts have to contain pure sarcasm masked in some kind of superiority complex. So maybe you did understand and choose to respond this way on purpose.
Anyway, the purpose of my post was saying that I am not interested in splitting the game into different versions on different servers. This problem has been brought up many times for all the people who want to customize different things on their server. Sure, you can say people were used to a spammable remote mine, but that has changed, and not just on one server but throughout the entire game. You see, that is what you seemingly failed to grasp or purposely decided to ignore. What if we just decided to customize everything. You could guess at how powerful each weapon was when you joined a server, how fast each plane was, or even if they were going to have 10 times the health. This is the idea behind trying to keep certain things standard and applies just as well to planescale and viewscale.
I know that some of you guys who play on the New England Servers seem to think that just because you play at 110/95 that it must be better. Like you are somehow the experts on what is best for the game. Realize that you are the minority, that outside of those few servers every other game is played at the normal planescale and viewscale. If lamster and karl decide they want to adopt that standard then by all means I will accept it and we all can learn to play that way.
As for the artifacts and image distortion, you are welcome to sit there and pretend just because you don't have a problem that it must not be a problem for anyone else. For me it is like the monitor is set on a resolution that it doesn't support while at the same time it creates small ghosting of objects and planes as I move the screen around, which is most likely a result of the resolution issue (almost like pixels are trying to be in more than 1 place at the same time). But feel free to keep acting like whatever your screen looks like must be the case for everyone.
Despite the attitude of the some of the other supporters of 95/110, I think you need to consider it a bit more.
Despite players being used the normal view, the change is not one that significantly affects game strategies. The beauty of 95/110 is that it simply reduces the effectiveness of certain spammy play styles. The fact is that you can only be hit by players in your current view. Thus players aren't encouraged to shoot down any corridor ad hoc, instead aiming at actual planes. This wont make players have to learn two completely different styles of play, just reduce annoyances.
As for the graphical issues, I haven't seen any myself, but if they do exist I believe you should bring it up with Lam and Karl. Even if 95/110 isn't the default, they do support it and I believe they'd be glad to follow any bugs and attempt to resolve them.
Anyway, the purpose of my post was saying that I am not interested in splitting the game into different versions on different servers. This problem has been brought up many times for all the people who want to customize different things on their server. Sure, you can say people were used to a spammable remote mine, but that has changed, and not just on one server but throughout the entire game. You see, that is what you seemingly failed to grasp or purposely decided to ignore. What if we just decided to customize everything. You could guess at how powerful each weapon was when you joined a server, how fast each plane was, or even if they were going to have 10 times the health. This is the idea behind trying to keep certain things standard and applies just as well to planescale and viewscale.
I know that some of you guys who play on the New England Servers seem to think that just because you play at 110/95 that it must be better. Like you are somehow the experts on what is best for the game. Realize that you are the minority, that outside of those few servers every other game is played at the normal planescale and viewscale. If lamster and karl decide they want to adopt that standard then by all means I will accept it and we all can learn to play that way.
As for the artifacts and image distortion, you are welcome to sit there and pretend just because you don't have a problem that it must not be a problem for anyone else. For me it is like the monitor is set on a resolution that it doesn't support while at the same time it creates small ghosting of objects and planes as I move the screen around, which is most likely a result of the resolution issue (almost like pixels are trying to be in more than 1 place at the same time). But feel free to keep acting like whatever your screen looks like must be the case for everyone.
Despite the attitude of the some of the other supporters of 95/110, I think you need to consider it a bit more.
Despite players being used the normal view, the change is not one that significantly affects game strategies. The beauty of 95/110 is that it simply reduces the effectiveness of certain spammy play styles. The fact is that you can only be hit by players in your current view. Thus players aren't encouraged to shoot down any corridor ad hoc, instead aiming at actual planes. This wont make players have to learn two completely different styles of play, just reduce annoyances.
As for the graphical issues, I haven't seen any myself, but if they do exist I believe you should bring it up with Lam and Karl. Even if 95/110 isn't the default, they do support it and I believe they'd be glad to follow any bugs and attempt to resolve them.
Snowsickle
01-24-2010, 03:03 AM
Not too sure about your last comment there? We are working as fast and as hard as we can to fix the current issues with rating system/AB, but we can't code 24/7.
I don't mean to offend; I appreciate the hard work going into this ladder and it's mind boggling how much time you guys have put into it. Great job on that. However, it simply isn't for me right now, and I don't want to give the impression that I'm asking you guys to cater to my desires when I'm not actively participating. I offer my ideas as general suggestions because I would like to see this thing succeed.
I didn't realize you worked exclusively from the logs; I was under the impression you recorded certain information from the server console and had the capacity to operate through the console. Thanks for clearing that up.
I don't mean to offend; I appreciate the hard work going into this ladder and it's mind boggling how much time you guys have put into it. Great job on that. However, it simply isn't for me right now, and I don't want to give the impression that I'm asking you guys to cater to my desires when I'm not actively participating. I offer my ideas as general suggestions because I would like to see this thing succeed.
I didn't realize you worked exclusively from the logs; I was under the impression you recorded certain information from the server console and had the capacity to operate through the console. Thanks for clearing that up.
DiogenesDog
01-24-2010, 03:23 AM
I'd also love to see 110/95 become the standard. Or 110/100. The 95 part is really pretty gratuitous since it doesn't affect the spam issue at all, it just makes aiming harder.
As for the graphics issues: Lam's mentioned this a few times, so I'm pretty sure it's a real thing. However, several patches back this was listed as being improved in the patch notes. I'm totally oblivious to this kind of thing, though, and never noticed the original problem so... hrm. Hard to say whether most of the issues have been solved or not. I definitely don't think it's a major issue for anyone interested in playing competitively though.
And note to Snow: you really should give it a try. It's not going to be good for settling how good people are, but I've had so many great games in the last two days. There's some annoying bitching that goes on because the games "count" and so people get their panties in a twist, and sometimes it takes too long for a game to get started, but the quality of the matches is way higher than in random games. So just try it for the fun games and pretend the ranking doesn't exist if it bothers you. :)
As for the graphics issues: Lam's mentioned this a few times, so I'm pretty sure it's a real thing. However, several patches back this was listed as being improved in the patch notes. I'm totally oblivious to this kind of thing, though, and never noticed the original problem so... hrm. Hard to say whether most of the issues have been solved or not. I definitely don't think it's a major issue for anyone interested in playing competitively though.
And note to Snow: you really should give it a try. It's not going to be good for settling how good people are, but I've had so many great games in the last two days. There's some annoying bitching that goes on because the games "count" and so people get their panties in a twist, and sometimes it takes too long for a game to get started, but the quality of the matches is way higher than in random games. So just try it for the fun games and pretend the ranking doesn't exist if it bothers you. :)
hurripilot
01-24-2010, 03:25 AM
Just wanted to say that despite the problems I have with the ladders and the less desirable elements of human nature they sometimes bring forth, I have noticed a marked increase in my overall team play and skill level. The stress that your team puts on you to win can be quite the motivating and focusing force.
On the other hand, I really miss having people like Mat, X, Flight, etc. in the pubs. I find the ladder getting the better of me at times, and I'd like to just go to a pub server and relax with some good ol' biplane random, however, the pub servers have become over run with trolls and other irritating players thanks to the ladders sucking everyone else in. I know there's nothing you guys could ever do about that, I just wanted to air that out a bit. I got into Alti because it was a fun, challenging game that was somehow relaxing and satisfying at the same time. I'm kinda missing that "fun" and "relaxing" portion atm. Hopefully, people will come back to the pubs.
On the other hand, I really miss having people like Mat, X, Flight, etc. in the pubs. I find the ladder getting the better of me at times, and I'd like to just go to a pub server and relax with some good ol' biplane random, however, the pub servers have become over run with trolls and other irritating players thanks to the ladders sucking everyone else in. I know there's nothing you guys could ever do about that, I just wanted to air that out a bit. I got into Alti because it was a fun, challenging game that was somehow relaxing and satisfying at the same time. I'm kinda missing that "fun" and "relaxing" portion atm. Hopefully, people will come back to the pubs.
Pieface
01-24-2010, 03:26 AM
I understand the stance that is being taken on the 95/110 issue, and since these are your servers feel free to do whatever you wish. Personally, after having played on the New England servers for a substantial amount of time I tend to agree that the only changes the deviations make from the defaults are positive ones. 95/110 settings tend to encourage a less spammy playstyle that IMO really makes the game a lot better. I have yet to notice any distortion problems, but I agree that if they are noticeable that should be something to bring up with the devs.
On a different note, the servers have been really unstable in the last few hours. They keep doing the same thing as the Proleagues in that everyone's ping suddenly spikes and we are all kicked. Right now the servers are unresponsive after doing a massive lag-kick and don't even appear on the list. The ladder website is also not loading in my browser. Just thought you should be aware of the problems.
There has also been a ton of problems with spectators from what I've seen so far. As an example, I was playing a ladder match and halfway through someone joined (don't remember the name) and voted to stop the tournament. All of the spectators voted yes and we didn't have time to vote no before the tourney was stopped. Because of that, we had to return to the lobby and restart the whole match. I definitely think adding a few more admins would be beneficial to the overall experience.
Don't want to sound negative, overall the matches I've played have been excellent and I certainly appreciate all the work you guys have done to create such a wonderful new aspect to the game.
On a different note, the servers have been really unstable in the last few hours. They keep doing the same thing as the Proleagues in that everyone's ping suddenly spikes and we are all kicked. Right now the servers are unresponsive after doing a massive lag-kick and don't even appear on the list. The ladder website is also not loading in my browser. Just thought you should be aware of the problems.
There has also been a ton of problems with spectators from what I've seen so far. As an example, I was playing a ladder match and halfway through someone joined (don't remember the name) and voted to stop the tournament. All of the spectators voted yes and we didn't have time to vote no before the tourney was stopped. Because of that, we had to return to the lobby and restart the whole match. I definitely think adding a few more admins would be beneficial to the overall experience.
Don't want to sound negative, overall the matches I've played have been excellent and I certainly appreciate all the work you guys have done to create such a wonderful new aspect to the game.
ryebone
01-24-2010, 03:31 AM
I'm going to toss in an additional vote for some kind of automatic team system. Either pure randomization (and let the ELO/ratings update to reflect whatever point difference exists -- we're going to need a better system like trueskill for this to be effective, I think) or some kind of elaborate team algorithm. It looks like plenty of people are interested in abusing the ladder already, spectating games and -- in the event of captains games -- they respond that they aren't playing unless the team in question has an astronomically high chance of winning. Given the current state of the system this is a very effective way of ensuring that you're ranked favorably.
Also, I feel like there needs to be some kind of preference to people who are actually interested in playing. Several times earlier, I was denied a spot in the server because 5-6 players "wanted to watch" but refused to be chosen to participate in a game. Given that the servers have been full almost every time I've been playing, and a number of players will constantly state that they don't want to play, I think its only fair to potential participants that there be some kind of system in place. The ladder is a fantastic opportunity for the community to move away from the elitism and circle-jerking that ran the pro leagues; I strongly suggest not playing favorites and allowing veteran players to waste spaces in the server because of their previous notoriety.
How about just limiting server size to 10? We could set up one of the servers to have a maxplayer of 10, and leave the other at 16, to compare what works better. The idea is that if you join, it's because you want to play. If not, you shouldn't be there. Practically, the only time you'll be able to join is in the lobby between games as previous players are leaving. This way, there isn't any confusion as to whether or not you just want to watch: because you can't. Not only will this prevent any inane voteraging, particularly from spectators because they aren't able to play, but it also eliminates the annoyance of spectators who don't know how to teamchat. It will also help speed up the teamchoosing process, which is by far the most frustrating thing about the ladder. Everyone get on a team, vote autobalance, live with it. End of story.
Now most may not agree with me, but I'm very in favor of being EXTREMELY strict in the laddder severs. Intentional leaving? Ban. Intentionally voting no to screw with the system? Ban. Spectators talking about wanking in the middle of a game? I'll let that one slide. I might sound elitist, but I don't understand how someone can find the password (through the forums, no doubt) and not go check out the site to read the rules before posing stupid questions like "can I sub in?". To me, that's blatant ignorance that should not be tolerated in the ladder servers.
Oh, and the next person in the lobby to ask for the rankings website should also be banned. Permanently.
Edit: I forgot to account for people's spots being taken after accidentally disconnecting. A solution may be that after a starttourney is called, all slots are reserved for those players until the game ends.
Also, I feel like there needs to be some kind of preference to people who are actually interested in playing. Several times earlier, I was denied a spot in the server because 5-6 players "wanted to watch" but refused to be chosen to participate in a game. Given that the servers have been full almost every time I've been playing, and a number of players will constantly state that they don't want to play, I think its only fair to potential participants that there be some kind of system in place. The ladder is a fantastic opportunity for the community to move away from the elitism and circle-jerking that ran the pro leagues; I strongly suggest not playing favorites and allowing veteran players to waste spaces in the server because of their previous notoriety.
How about just limiting server size to 10? We could set up one of the servers to have a maxplayer of 10, and leave the other at 16, to compare what works better. The idea is that if you join, it's because you want to play. If not, you shouldn't be there. Practically, the only time you'll be able to join is in the lobby between games as previous players are leaving. This way, there isn't any confusion as to whether or not you just want to watch: because you can't. Not only will this prevent any inane voteraging, particularly from spectators because they aren't able to play, but it also eliminates the annoyance of spectators who don't know how to teamchat. It will also help speed up the teamchoosing process, which is by far the most frustrating thing about the ladder. Everyone get on a team, vote autobalance, live with it. End of story.
Now most may not agree with me, but I'm very in favor of being EXTREMELY strict in the laddder severs. Intentional leaving? Ban. Intentionally voting no to screw with the system? Ban. Spectators talking about wanking in the middle of a game? I'll let that one slide. I might sound elitist, but I don't understand how someone can find the password (through the forums, no doubt) and not go check out the site to read the rules before posing stupid questions like "can I sub in?". To me, that's blatant ignorance that should not be tolerated in the ladder servers.
Oh, and the next person in the lobby to ask for the rankings website should also be banned. Permanently.
Edit: I forgot to account for people's spots being taken after accidentally disconnecting. A solution may be that after a starttourney is called, all slots are reserved for those players until the game ends.
Snowsickle
01-24-2010, 03:34 AM
I want to add one more thing on the 110/95 issue. This ladder is the biggest thing that has happened to altitude in a very long time (ever?). Even the leagues had their fair share of issues: no clear sense of who was in charge, no clear standards or regulations. This is an opportunity to set a standard for the future of competitive play in altitude. If moves can be made to encourage a better competitive scene with more emphasis on skill and less on spam, I would strongly encourage those with the ability to do so to make that the standard. Plenty of games have competitive scenes with slight improvements to gameplay. So far there is no established standard. TF2, for example, disables critical hits for competitive play.
My own preference is 110/95 (maybe even 90, I enjoy playing with it). I feel like people tend to blow the negatives of 110/95 (which, almost exclusively tend to be "it sucks getting used to two different views") way out of proportion. It's a very convenient cop-out; people can easily blame poor gameplay on "being used to something else". As Dio said, it merely cuts down on spam and has the potential to increase the skill required to aim effectively. I have heard it said in the past that there are some true technical issues preventing Lam and Karl from officially changing the viewscale of the game, so I don't believe it to be a valid argument that "they determined that this was the best for every situation".
EDIT: Responding to a point from a while back since Ryebone reminded me; there was an admin present when I was unable to join the server due to 6 spectators. The admin made no effort whatsoever to rectify the situation, and I'm told by certain people who were present at the time, only used his status as a method to circumvent the 16 player limit. Admin status, thus far, comes across as more of a popularity contest than a choice of responsible people.
My own preference is 110/95 (maybe even 90, I enjoy playing with it). I feel like people tend to blow the negatives of 110/95 (which, almost exclusively tend to be "it sucks getting used to two different views") way out of proportion. It's a very convenient cop-out; people can easily blame poor gameplay on "being used to something else". As Dio said, it merely cuts down on spam and has the potential to increase the skill required to aim effectively. I have heard it said in the past that there are some true technical issues preventing Lam and Karl from officially changing the viewscale of the game, so I don't believe it to be a valid argument that "they determined that this was the best for every situation".
EDIT: Responding to a point from a while back since Ryebone reminded me; there was an admin present when I was unable to join the server due to 6 spectators. The admin made no effort whatsoever to rectify the situation, and I'm told by certain people who were present at the time, only used his status as a method to circumvent the 16 player limit. Admin status, thus far, comes across as more of a popularity contest than a choice of responsible people.
Sarah Palin
01-24-2010, 03:49 AM
There is a series of interconnected issues with the ladder now -
game downtime,
unbalanced teams,
annoying speccers ("Don't pick me I'm eating!"),
people who dodge games until they have a pwn team set up,
etc etc etc.
At the root of it is the fact that the ladder's estimate of player skill doesn't really affect the game. In a game where I lost against a team of sammiches I lost 23 points, in a game vs a team of nubs I lost 27 points. What's the difference.
So since the ladder does not appreciably punish you for having a pwn team or handicap you for playing with a bad team, everyone becomes complete ***** about choosing teams. There is also a growth of majorly unsportsmanlike conduct, basically "take the points and run" in whatever situation no matter what the ethical questions. This is not like the old laid back Alti at all.
The best thing the devs can do is push forward ladder balancing and solve the other issues (ranking, scale, size) later.
game downtime,
unbalanced teams,
annoying speccers ("Don't pick me I'm eating!"),
people who dodge games until they have a pwn team set up,
etc etc etc.
At the root of it is the fact that the ladder's estimate of player skill doesn't really affect the game. In a game where I lost against a team of sammiches I lost 23 points, in a game vs a team of nubs I lost 27 points. What's the difference.
So since the ladder does not appreciably punish you for having a pwn team or handicap you for playing with a bad team, everyone becomes complete ***** about choosing teams. There is also a growth of majorly unsportsmanlike conduct, basically "take the points and run" in whatever situation no matter what the ethical questions. This is not like the old laid back Alti at all.
The best thing the devs can do is push forward ladder balancing and solve the other issues (ranking, scale, size) later.
nesnl
01-24-2010, 04:56 AM
Wow, a lot of posts and a lot of information. I am going to try to address everything hopefully. If you still have an issue that didn't get addressed then post again.
110/95: We, the creators of the ladder, will take everything into account. In all likelihood it will not change unless lamster changes the default view.
Servers Lagging/Causing Disconnects: It's a VPS that isn't very good. It is the same VPS that hosts Captains' Games. When the connection goes bad and the servers go down it is the fault of the VPS, nothing we can control. It sucks, maybe one day we can move up to a better hosting service.
Ratings/Balance: As eth said, we are working hard to improve the ladder. It seems to be popular so we will continue to work on it, but we can't fix everything in a day. As for the ratings and winning/losing points, etc. We are aware the rating system is messed up. It will be fixed early this upcoming week. Maybe Monday or Tuesday. When it is fixed we will run all the games that have been played to date through the new algorithm. The new system will fix a lot of the mentioned problems. We will continue to tweak the system if it is still a problem. As for balance, eth covered that as well. We will build a balancing tool into the website, but it will always be the responsibility of the players in the server to use that information and make the teams unless lamster codes something in that allows us to make the teams via a remote program.
Server Size: I have it set to 16 players for a couple of reasons. First, the more slots that there are the more load the VPS takes. It's crappy enough as it is, we don't need another 10 spectators taking up valuable resources. Second, the vote thresholds are not currently set in a way that would be good for more spectators. Stoptournament is currently set to greater than 49%. I want to avoid a situation where 10 spectators can stop a game without anyone saying anything that is actually playing. As for the person who said the spectators stopped the game currently. It is impossible for them to do that currently unless someone in game voted yes as well.
Admins: Up until I made this post there was only 3 admins. Those admins were myself, eth and nobodyhome. This is because we created the ladder. It was not and is not a popularity contest. Today, we added two more admins: tyr and mikesol. If you have problems with them then let me, eth, or nobodyhome know. We decided to use them because they are fair and I deal with them on a regular basis. Please note that no admin should ever be using the /starttournament or /changemap command. It should all be done by vote. This is to prevent anyone from playing in a game they didn't feel like they had a say in.
I hope that covered it all. If this isn't clear, then ask for clarification. We will continue to work on the ladder. Thank you for the support and all the feedback. I am glad that me, eth and nobodyhome were able to provide something of value to the community. Keep the feedback coming, both positive and negative.
110/95: We, the creators of the ladder, will take everything into account. In all likelihood it will not change unless lamster changes the default view.
Servers Lagging/Causing Disconnects: It's a VPS that isn't very good. It is the same VPS that hosts Captains' Games. When the connection goes bad and the servers go down it is the fault of the VPS, nothing we can control. It sucks, maybe one day we can move up to a better hosting service.
Ratings/Balance: As eth said, we are working hard to improve the ladder. It seems to be popular so we will continue to work on it, but we can't fix everything in a day. As for the ratings and winning/losing points, etc. We are aware the rating system is messed up. It will be fixed early this upcoming week. Maybe Monday or Tuesday. When it is fixed we will run all the games that have been played to date through the new algorithm. The new system will fix a lot of the mentioned problems. We will continue to tweak the system if it is still a problem. As for balance, eth covered that as well. We will build a balancing tool into the website, but it will always be the responsibility of the players in the server to use that information and make the teams unless lamster codes something in that allows us to make the teams via a remote program.
Server Size: I have it set to 16 players for a couple of reasons. First, the more slots that there are the more load the VPS takes. It's crappy enough as it is, we don't need another 10 spectators taking up valuable resources. Second, the vote thresholds are not currently set in a way that would be good for more spectators. Stoptournament is currently set to greater than 49%. I want to avoid a situation where 10 spectators can stop a game without anyone saying anything that is actually playing. As for the person who said the spectators stopped the game currently. It is impossible for them to do that currently unless someone in game voted yes as well.
Admins: Up until I made this post there was only 3 admins. Those admins were myself, eth and nobodyhome. This is because we created the ladder. It was not and is not a popularity contest. Today, we added two more admins: tyr and mikesol. If you have problems with them then let me, eth, or nobodyhome know. We decided to use them because they are fair and I deal with them on a regular basis. Please note that no admin should ever be using the /starttournament or /changemap command. It should all be done by vote. This is to prevent anyone from playing in a game they didn't feel like they had a say in.
I hope that covered it all. If this isn't clear, then ask for clarification. We will continue to work on the ladder. Thank you for the support and all the feedback. I am glad that me, eth and nobodyhome were able to provide something of value to the community. Keep the feedback coming, both positive and negative.
Vi*
01-24-2010, 08:15 AM
It's pretty cool that you guys made this system. Obviously this is having a huge impact on altitude, the games being played, the community.
I know you're working hard to make sure that impact is a positive one. Hopefully some of the stuff people have been discussing about votes/admins/teams will help to make it so more time isn't spent in the lobby than actually playing (assuming you're picked for matches). I also hope you'll consider the positive impact you could have on the competitive scene by making the view/scale 110/95.
Some of the issues might sort themselves out, as people get used to the ladder and its rules, and no longer are overfilling it while eating or whatever because it's not novel anymore. That will hopefully also fix the issue of people not being able to find any non-bouncy non-ladder games.
I think it's pretty amazing that you guys did this, though.
I know you're working hard to make sure that impact is a positive one. Hopefully some of the stuff people have been discussing about votes/admins/teams will help to make it so more time isn't spent in the lobby than actually playing (assuming you're picked for matches). I also hope you'll consider the positive impact you could have on the competitive scene by making the view/scale 110/95.
Some of the issues might sort themselves out, as people get used to the ladder and its rules, and no longer are overfilling it while eating or whatever because it's not novel anymore. That will hopefully also fix the issue of people not being able to find any non-bouncy non-ladder games.
I think it's pretty amazing that you guys did this, though.
CCN
01-24-2010, 08:27 AM
i like the limited info personally, but i should play more 11/95 before i opinion it
eth
01-24-2010, 02:00 PM
I just wanted to clarify a bit here:
- 110/95 is not gonna happen as long as there are graphics glitches. We simply can't host servers where x amount of players get artifacts all over their screen, no matter how good it is for the competitive scene.
- Better VPS is most likely not gonna happen. We are using the current VPS courtesy of lamster & Karl, me, nobo and Maimer cannot afford a VPS ourselves. So unless we get divine intervetion or something, we're stuck with these issues(and we apologize very much for that - there is simply nothing we can do about it).
- 110/95 is not gonna happen as long as there are graphics glitches. We simply can't host servers where x amount of players get artifacts all over their screen, no matter how good it is for the competitive scene.
- Better VPS is most likely not gonna happen. We are using the current VPS courtesy of lamster & Karl, me, nobo and Maimer cannot afford a VPS ourselves. So unless we get divine intervetion or something, we're stuck with these issues(and we apologize very much for that - there is simply nothing we can do about it).
DiogenesDog
01-24-2010, 06:52 PM
Quick suggestion: it's be really nice if there was an option to check aliases on names in the Altitude ladder. I think Tec has already done most of the work on this here: http://tec27.com/altbouncer/
just need to plug the data into your stats screen
just need to plug the data into your stats screen
tec27
01-24-2010, 07:05 PM
I think thats in the plans. The reason its not there yet is mostly my fault atm, so sorry :(
CCN
01-24-2010, 08:22 PM
problem with autobalance, if you get a bad plane mix. E.g. 3 loopies or 0 whales or 3 trick vs 3 whales.
Ferret
01-24-2010, 08:25 PM
problem with autobalance, if you get a bad plane mix. E.g. 3 loopies or 0 whales or 3 trick vs 3 whales.
Solution is for people to pick different planes because they aren't locked.
Solution is for people to pick different planes because they aren't locked.
CCN
01-24-2010, 08:32 PM
Solution is for people to pick different planes because they aren't locked.
I'm glad you think people here play all planes to a high level.
If they don't they should learn them right? Heck i'm surprised Jaedong hasn't learned all 3 SC races yet, what a noob.
subtext: your solution is bad
I'm glad you think people here play all planes to a high level.
If they don't they should learn them right? Heck i'm surprised Jaedong hasn't learned all 3 SC races yet, what a noob.
subtext: your solution is bad
Ferret
01-24-2010, 08:51 PM
I'm glad you think people here play all planes to a high level.
If they don't they should learn them right? Heck i'm surprised Jaedong hasn't learned all 3 SC races yet, what a noob.
subtext: your solution sucks balls.
I don't want to indulge you too much because that's a really pathetic analogy, but the point is that he could beat anyone here with any match up because of his superior micro, macro and understanding of the game. How far off do we need to go with analogies that have little application to the situation, am I supposed to somehow argue against that with "Kasparov can play both white and black?"
In a competitive environment, if your entire team is a plane match up that is bad to play with or play against what the other team has, if none of you have the ability to play any of the other 4 planes, or any of their 3 perk variants, at a competitive level, you deserve to lose.
If they don't they should learn them right? Heck i'm surprised Jaedong hasn't learned all 3 SC races yet, what a noob.
subtext: your solution sucks balls.
I don't want to indulge you too much because that's a really pathetic analogy, but the point is that he could beat anyone here with any match up because of his superior micro, macro and understanding of the game. How far off do we need to go with analogies that have little application to the situation, am I supposed to somehow argue against that with "Kasparov can play both white and black?"
In a competitive environment, if your entire team is a plane match up that is bad to play with or play against what the other team has, if none of you have the ability to play any of the other 4 planes, or any of their 3 perk variants, at a competitive level, you deserve to lose.
CCN
01-24-2010, 08:58 PM
I guess if you are unwilling to accept the idea of an analogy there is no helping you.
In a competitive environment, at the margin, if you're matched up against people playing their first rate planes, your 2nd rate plane doesn't cut it. Losing due to this reason, luck, is bad.
In a competitive environment, at the margin, if you're matched up against people playing their first rate planes, your 2nd rate plane doesn't cut it. Losing due to this reason, luck, is bad.
Triped
01-24-2010, 09:12 PM
I guess if you are unwilling to accept the idea of an analogy there is no helping you.
In a competitive environment, at the margin, if you're matched up against people playing their first rate planes, your 2nd rate plane doesn't cut it. Losing due to this reason, luck, is bad.
Assume it benefits you as often as it hurts you. I wouldn't worry about it.
In a competitive environment, at the margin, if you're matched up against people playing their first rate planes, your 2nd rate plane doesn't cut it. Losing due to this reason, luck, is bad.
Assume it benefits you as often as it hurts you. I wouldn't worry about it.
Vi*
01-24-2010, 09:15 PM
I guess if you are unwilling to accept the idea of an analogy there is no helping you.
In a competitive environment, at the margin, if you're matched up against people playing their first rate planes, your 2nd rate plane doesn't cut it. Losing due to this reason, luck, is bad.
If you lose because you're matched against people better than you, is it also luck? Or could it be that you lost because they're better than you?
I think it's good, even fun, to try to adapt your play style and plane build depending on the needs of your current team, and that is why it is fun to try playing competitive matches with random teammates. Or should we try to play all ladder games with only our clan teammates or others who we are used to playing with? Personally I think it's kind of dumb when people go into the ladder server and then try to turn it into a scrim of clan vs random mix.
In a competitive environment, at the margin, if you're matched up against people playing their first rate planes, your 2nd rate plane doesn't cut it. Losing due to this reason, luck, is bad.
If you lose because you're matched against people better than you, is it also luck? Or could it be that you lost because they're better than you?
I think it's good, even fun, to try to adapt your play style and plane build depending on the needs of your current team, and that is why it is fun to try playing competitive matches with random teammates. Or should we try to play all ladder games with only our clan teammates or others who we are used to playing with? Personally I think it's kind of dumb when people go into the ladder server and then try to turn it into a scrim of clan vs random mix.
wolf'j'max
01-24-2010, 09:20 PM
I actually i like both random and captain games. I had alot of random games. We just got 10 people pressing f at the same time. Then voted the balanceteams feature and got some nice games. I have no complains and i think CCN that if you don't want a random fun game. Get 9 people out the top tier teams to play with you and have nice rapage games. I just had fun with these peeps.
Snowsickle
01-24-2010, 09:25 PM
I guess if you are unwilling to accept the idea of an analogy there is no helping you.
In a competitive environment, at the margin, if you're matched up against people playing their first rate planes, your 2nd rate plane doesn't cut it. Losing due to this reason, luck, is bad.
There are two issues with this analogy. One, starcraft is unrivaled in its competitive nature; there is literally no skill ceiling for any one race, so it's never beneficial to put your resources into more than one race. Don't pretend for a minute that altitude has near the strategic depth/skill requirement as starcraft; I can name a dozen people off the top of my head that play multiple planes at the top tier of play.
Second, Vi's comment on adaptation is very accurate. I can make a bad starcraft analogy too - you're a zerg player and you overpool to 5 hatch hydra every game because its the only strategy you've ever practiced and you don't believe in a need to adapt.
In a competitive environment, at the margin, if you're matched up against people playing their first rate planes, your 2nd rate plane doesn't cut it. Losing due to this reason, luck, is bad.
There are two issues with this analogy. One, starcraft is unrivaled in its competitive nature; there is literally no skill ceiling for any one race, so it's never beneficial to put your resources into more than one race. Don't pretend for a minute that altitude has near the strategic depth/skill requirement as starcraft; I can name a dozen people off the top of my head that play multiple planes at the top tier of play.
Second, Vi's comment on adaptation is very accurate. I can make a bad starcraft analogy too - you're a zerg player and you overpool to 5 hatch hydra every game because its the only strategy you've ever practiced and you don't believe in a need to adapt.
nesnl
01-24-2010, 09:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/KIzWt7wTp7Q&loop=1
tec27
01-25-2010, 12:40 AM
I made an AutoHotkey script to help with some ladder functionality. It has 3/4 main functions:
- Doing /startTournament and /stopTournament votes in one keypress
- Picking a map randomly from the list (and automatically voting it if you so choose)
- Picking a random team to pick first in captain games
It's pretty easily customizable if you open it up, but by default it will automatically perform all votes and send messages to chat (you can make it not do that and put messages in the clipboard instead, if you'd like).
By default, the hotkeys are:
F6 - Start tourney
F7 - Stop tourney
F8 - Choose captain
F9 - Choose map
To customize it, just open up the script in a text editor (notepad, etc.) and read from the top, there are instructions as to what each section does and what to change if you'd like to customize it.
This script will only work on Windows, but that shouldn't be much of a problem because really only 1 person needs to be running it in any given ladder server.
DL Link: http://tec27.com/LadderHelper.ahk :) :) :eek: :)
And if you don't have AutoHotkey installed, you can get it at: http://www.autohotkey.com/
- Doing /startTournament and /stopTournament votes in one keypress
- Picking a map randomly from the list (and automatically voting it if you so choose)
- Picking a random team to pick first in captain games
It's pretty easily customizable if you open it up, but by default it will automatically perform all votes and send messages to chat (you can make it not do that and put messages in the clipboard instead, if you'd like).
By default, the hotkeys are:
F6 - Start tourney
F7 - Stop tourney
F8 - Choose captain
F9 - Choose map
To customize it, just open up the script in a text editor (notepad, etc.) and read from the top, there are instructions as to what each section does and what to change if you'd like to customize it.
This script will only work on Windows, but that shouldn't be much of a problem because really only 1 person needs to be running it in any given ladder server.
DL Link: http://tec27.com/LadderHelper.ahk :) :) :eek: :)
And if you don't have AutoHotkey installed, you can get it at: http://www.autohotkey.com/
DiogenesDog
01-25-2010, 03:23 AM
I can name a dozen people off the top of my head that play multiple planes at the top tier of play.
Hm, this was also true of SC until about 2 years after release. With a community as small as Altitude's, you're always going to have people who are able to make up for practicing suboptimally by just playing more / being more talented. It's not until people get COMPLETELY INSANE with a game that specialization becomes really vital.
I mean, actually I agree with your overall point, but it's honestly hard to be completely sure. I don't think anyone's maxed out the skill ceiling with any of the planes just yet. Until that happens, we won't really know how high it is.
Hm, this was also true of SC until about 2 years after release. With a community as small as Altitude's, you're always going to have people who are able to make up for practicing suboptimally by just playing more / being more talented. It's not until people get COMPLETELY INSANE with a game that specialization becomes really vital.
I mean, actually I agree with your overall point, but it's honestly hard to be completely sure. I don't think anyone's maxed out the skill ceiling with any of the planes just yet. Until that happens, we won't really know how high it is.
CCN
01-25-2010, 04:35 AM
If you lose because you're matched against people better than you, is it also luck? Or could it be that you lost because they're better than you?
I think what you're trying to say is if you lose while matched against better people it's not luck.
However the nature of a team game means you rely on teammates - so you can, by luck,, have a team that beats another team that has a player stronger than you or is in general stronger than you.
Analogy: Basketball:
Lebron best player but his team still loses. Even though his team was considered better then the Orlando Magic last season they still lost fairly regularly to them due to the player matchup.
In the end all i'm saying is balanced teams are fun, but having a good plane mix also makes for better games.
I think what you're trying to say is if you lose while matched against better people it's not luck.
However the nature of a team game means you rely on teammates - so you can, by luck,, have a team that beats another team that has a player stronger than you or is in general stronger than you.
Analogy: Basketball:
Lebron best player but his team still loses. Even though his team was considered better then the Orlando Magic last season they still lost fairly regularly to them due to the player matchup.
In the end all i'm saying is balanced teams are fun, but having a good plane mix also makes for better games.
Sarah Palin
01-25-2010, 05:47 AM
The difference from Starcraft is Alti is a team game. Better players with less cooperation and teamwork will lose. In fact, players who have poor teamwork are poor players. Part of the teamwork is flying what your team needs even if it's not your #1 plane.
It's a pain on Core when you have 5 loopies and randas and nobody is willing to fly whale or even bomber. You're pretty much doomed in that scenario.
Every map needs heavy planes, if you don't have them you're gonna get muscled around. Even a noob whale laying mines everywhere can alleviate this.
Having no heavy planes is probably the most common imba scenario... the second most common would be having only one bombrunner, especially on team bomb maps like Asteroids. But this is easier to fix. The third most common would be, I'd guess, having no miranda control. Again not a problem because Tracker and Acid are easy.
The solution is teamtalk it out, and get everyone to do what they need to get the team to win. If you can't do this I agree with Ferret, your team is doomed.
It's a pain on Core when you have 5 loopies and randas and nobody is willing to fly whale or even bomber. You're pretty much doomed in that scenario.
Every map needs heavy planes, if you don't have them you're gonna get muscled around. Even a noob whale laying mines everywhere can alleviate this.
Having no heavy planes is probably the most common imba scenario... the second most common would be having only one bombrunner, especially on team bomb maps like Asteroids. But this is easier to fix. The third most common would be, I'd guess, having no miranda control. Again not a problem because Tracker and Acid are easy.
The solution is teamtalk it out, and get everyone to do what they need to get the team to win. If you can't do this I agree with Ferret, your team is doomed.
Herodadotus
01-25-2010, 05:53 AM
The difference from Starcraft is Alti is a team game. Better players with less cooperation and teamwork will lose. In fact, players who have poor teamwork are poor players. Part of the teamwork is flying what your team needs even if it's not your #1 plane.
It's a pain on Core when you have 5 loopies and randas and nobody is willing to fly whale or even bomber. You're pretty much doomed in that scenario.
Every map needs heavy planes, if you don't have them you're gonna get muscled around. Even a noob whale laying mines everywhere can alleviate this.
Having no heavy planes is probably the most common imba scenario... the second most common would be having only one bombrunner, especially on team bomb maps like Asteroids. But this is easier to fix. The third most common would be, I'd guess, having no miranda control. Again not a problem because Tracker and Acid are easy.
The solution is teamtalk it out, and get everyone to do what they need to get the team to win. If you can't do this I agree with Ferret, your team is doomed.
Yeah, today I was involved in a game where one of the guys on our team left. We continued playing, and we won. We won because we had a wide array of planes, while the other team was a loopy-fest.
It's a pain on Core when you have 5 loopies and randas and nobody is willing to fly whale or even bomber. You're pretty much doomed in that scenario.
Every map needs heavy planes, if you don't have them you're gonna get muscled around. Even a noob whale laying mines everywhere can alleviate this.
Having no heavy planes is probably the most common imba scenario... the second most common would be having only one bombrunner, especially on team bomb maps like Asteroids. But this is easier to fix. The third most common would be, I'd guess, having no miranda control. Again not a problem because Tracker and Acid are easy.
The solution is teamtalk it out, and get everyone to do what they need to get the team to win. If you can't do this I agree with Ferret, your team is doomed.
Yeah, today I was involved in a game where one of the guys on our team left. We continued playing, and we won. We won because we had a wide array of planes, while the other team was a loopy-fest.
CCN
01-25-2010, 05:57 AM
Loopies are the plane that add the least to any team. Unless it's a good acid player. Generally if you have more then 1 loopy on your team you have a huge redundency.
Sarah Palin
01-25-2010, 06:18 AM
Well 5v5 is too small to have more than one loopy, or maybe Acid + Tracker if the enemy has 3 or 4 Mirandas. It all depends on the enemy team makeup. But I wouldn't say Loopy adds little to the team, I'll take good use of Acid and EMP over biplane damage any day.
CCN
01-25-2010, 06:40 AM
i'd take an acid as often as I can, but a tracker I would wish upon my enemy.
Evan20000
01-25-2010, 08:40 PM
Loops are also efficient bomb runners. Doubling up supoort with your runner plane means you have an additional slot for another heavy plane.
cynwulf
01-25-2010, 11:40 PM
Hi Guys,
Awesome work - thanks for implementing.
One suggestion for fixing the inflation problem is to introduce the degredation of points over time..
Cheers,
Cyn
Awesome work - thanks for implementing.
One suggestion for fixing the inflation problem is to introduce the degredation of points over time..
Cheers,
Cyn
Ajuk999
01-26-2010, 01:16 AM
I have no idea if anyone has said this or not, but I have noticed dozens more people on Altitude Lately. Normally when I log in to Altitude, there is maybe five-ten of my friends on, but now there is at least 25 plus of my friends on! I think The Altitude Ladder has helped boost Altitude's activity, by a huge margin. And for that, a Special Thanks to eth, maimer, and the rest of you guys that put this thing together!
GMAC
01-26-2010, 01:35 AM
I've just come off from playing my first game on the ladder. Very fun, very sporting.
It does usually take a long time to get a game in order, but well worth the wait when it finally does start :)
It does usually take a long time to get a game in order, but well worth the wait when it finally does start :)
[Y]
01-26-2010, 04:07 AM
I'd like to make an analogy (might be a bad one, tho).
Until the new balance teams function is implemented, joining a ladder server is like getting on line for a rollercoaster that you've never been on before. You often wait a ridiculous amount of time while the teams get sorted, and when they're finally finalized, you could either play an awesome game of competitive altitude fun, or you could get screwed over by stacked teams (good coaster ride, bad coaster ride).
But once again, many thanks to eth/nobo/maimer for all the hard work they've put into this. We greatly appreciate it.
Until the new balance teams function is implemented, joining a ladder server is like getting on line for a rollercoaster that you've never been on before. You often wait a ridiculous amount of time while the teams get sorted, and when they're finally finalized, you could either play an awesome game of competitive altitude fun, or you could get screwed over by stacked teams (good coaster ride, bad coaster ride).
But once again, many thanks to eth/nobo/maimer for all the hard work they've put into this. We greatly appreciate it.
Flight 666
01-26-2010, 07:47 PM
Where's slots for spectors?
So...captains game on Ladder is over =/
So...captains game on Ladder is over =/
DMCM
01-26-2010, 08:39 PM
About the use of planes...
I only play Biplane and Loopy. Considering the actual fighting skill and map control they're the 2 least useful planes in a 5v5 in my opinion. But they're also the 2 best planes for bomb running (which is mostly what I do) and they have their uses. EMP and acid can be used to control an area from relatively long distance, that's always an advantage. Double Fire is great for defending too, I've stopped countless bomb runs with it. Biplane gets too much punishment from heavy planes and long range weapon requires so much aim, you can't use it for spamming effectively either. So you need to get in close range and fire both weapons to take out heavy planes. That's HARD because they can both attack from front and behind plus they can keep you at long range with their weapons. And that's why I bitch so much about teams with 4 heavy planes (2 explo 2 bombers or 3 explos 1 bomber). They make my light planes utterly useless and for a bomb-runner it's even worse, ruins all the fun in the game. As long as the team doesn't have too many heavy planes, then DF, acid and biplane are all useful, if only at bombing decently like myself.
I only play Biplane and Loopy. Considering the actual fighting skill and map control they're the 2 least useful planes in a 5v5 in my opinion. But they're also the 2 best planes for bomb running (which is mostly what I do) and they have their uses. EMP and acid can be used to control an area from relatively long distance, that's always an advantage. Double Fire is great for defending too, I've stopped countless bomb runs with it. Biplane gets too much punishment from heavy planes and long range weapon requires so much aim, you can't use it for spamming effectively either. So you need to get in close range and fire both weapons to take out heavy planes. That's HARD because they can both attack from front and behind plus they can keep you at long range with their weapons. And that's why I bitch so much about teams with 4 heavy planes (2 explo 2 bombers or 3 explos 1 bomber). They make my light planes utterly useless and for a bomb-runner it's even worse, ruins all the fun in the game. As long as the team doesn't have too many heavy planes, then DF, acid and biplane are all useful, if only at bombing decently like myself.
wolf'j'max
01-28-2010, 04:49 PM
i had to leave in game yesterday without knowing that when we strated. eso told me it would be a 2 day ban.
i won't play today and toorrow in the ladder server.
cya,
-wolf-
i won't play today and toorrow in the ladder server.
cya,
-wolf-
tyr
01-28-2010, 04:59 PM
You can play - just read all the rules next time.
And don't do it again. ^^
And don't do it again. ^^
hurripilot
01-28-2010, 05:20 PM
About the use of planes...
I only play Biplane and Loopy. Considering the actual fighting skill and map control they're the 2 least useful planes in a 5v5 in my opinion. But they're also the 2 best planes for bomb running (which is mostly what I do) and they have their uses. EMP and acid can be used to control an area from relatively long distance, that's always an advantage. Double Fire is great for defending too, I've stopped countless bomb runs with it. Biplane gets too much punishment from heavy planes and long range weapon requires so much aim, you can't use it for spamming effectively either. So you need to get in close range and fire both weapons to take out heavy planes. That's HARD because they can both attack from front and behind plus they can keep you at long range with their weapons. And that's why I bitch so much about teams with 4 heavy planes (2 explo 2 bombers or 3 explos 1 bomber). They make my light planes utterly useless and for a bomb-runner it's even worse, ruins all the fun in the game. As long as the team doesn't have too many heavy planes, then DF, acid and biplane are all useful, if only at bombing decently like myself.
Try Heavy Cannon, DMCM. Long range is it's specialty and I can eat Explos and Bombers for dinner with it. In fact, I usually take on the role of Explo counter in Ladder and League games, which is why I play HC and Bomber. There's too much strategy to discuss in one reply, mayhaps I should write a temporary non-reverse HC guide until someone who's better at it like Eso or Nobo writes a better guide for it. For now, here are some tips.
Using Biplane as a support plane doesn't always mean killing your enemy. Wounding him can also be effective, as it can soften him up for other players to pick off, or force him to go off and hunt for health instead of controlling an area or covering a run.
When escorting, Biplane, and HC Biplane in particular, can be highly effective at sapping, taking out or severly damaging Explodets, Bombers, and Loopys, as well as finishing off those last few stragglers hanging out over the base. It's a quick, clean, and efficient weapon.
When defending, Biplane handles a similar role. When facing a concentrated push, the defending Biplane can position himself above the action, near a choke point. When the attackers pass, the Biplane can swoop in (or snipe, with HC) on the unsuspecting Bomb runner, who is likely at the rear of the enemy formation, and take him out or leave him very badly damaged and highly vulnerable.
These tactics also work for map control. Trying to blast every enemy player in a certain area is just not Biplane's forte. That's what Bombers and Explos are for. Biplane hangs out on the edges of the territory, setting up a run, killing or damaging a key player (Explo, Bomber), then running out of the area to regroup, recharge, and head back in for another pass.
Using tactics like these, I've seen a marked increase in my effectiveness as a Biplane in Ladder and other competitive TBD games. Just something to think about. It's basic stuff when you think about it, but the key is thinking about it and applying it in real time.
I only play Biplane and Loopy. Considering the actual fighting skill and map control they're the 2 least useful planes in a 5v5 in my opinion. But they're also the 2 best planes for bomb running (which is mostly what I do) and they have their uses. EMP and acid can be used to control an area from relatively long distance, that's always an advantage. Double Fire is great for defending too, I've stopped countless bomb runs with it. Biplane gets too much punishment from heavy planes and long range weapon requires so much aim, you can't use it for spamming effectively either. So you need to get in close range and fire both weapons to take out heavy planes. That's HARD because they can both attack from front and behind plus they can keep you at long range with their weapons. And that's why I bitch so much about teams with 4 heavy planes (2 explo 2 bombers or 3 explos 1 bomber). They make my light planes utterly useless and for a bomb-runner it's even worse, ruins all the fun in the game. As long as the team doesn't have too many heavy planes, then DF, acid and biplane are all useful, if only at bombing decently like myself.
Try Heavy Cannon, DMCM. Long range is it's specialty and I can eat Explos and Bombers for dinner with it. In fact, I usually take on the role of Explo counter in Ladder and League games, which is why I play HC and Bomber. There's too much strategy to discuss in one reply, mayhaps I should write a temporary non-reverse HC guide until someone who's better at it like Eso or Nobo writes a better guide for it. For now, here are some tips.
Using Biplane as a support plane doesn't always mean killing your enemy. Wounding him can also be effective, as it can soften him up for other players to pick off, or force him to go off and hunt for health instead of controlling an area or covering a run.
When escorting, Biplane, and HC Biplane in particular, can be highly effective at sapping, taking out or severly damaging Explodets, Bombers, and Loopys, as well as finishing off those last few stragglers hanging out over the base. It's a quick, clean, and efficient weapon.
When defending, Biplane handles a similar role. When facing a concentrated push, the defending Biplane can position himself above the action, near a choke point. When the attackers pass, the Biplane can swoop in (or snipe, with HC) on the unsuspecting Bomb runner, who is likely at the rear of the enemy formation, and take him out or leave him very badly damaged and highly vulnerable.
These tactics also work for map control. Trying to blast every enemy player in a certain area is just not Biplane's forte. That's what Bombers and Explos are for. Biplane hangs out on the edges of the territory, setting up a run, killing or damaging a key player (Explo, Bomber), then running out of the area to regroup, recharge, and head back in for another pass.
Using tactics like these, I've seen a marked increase in my effectiveness as a Biplane in Ladder and other competitive TBD games. Just something to think about. It's basic stuff when you think about it, but the key is thinking about it and applying it in real time.
wolf'j'max
01-28-2010, 05:58 PM
You can play - just read all the rules next time.
And don't do it again. ^^
ok thanks i'll just hope next time my mom won't shout "stop in 5 mins" when we're in the middle of a game :S
And don't do it again. ^^
ok thanks i'll just hope next time my mom won't shout "stop in 5 mins" when we're in the middle of a game :S
eth
01-28-2010, 06:07 PM
Hurri I think the real problem is that, while biplane/hc is definitely good, it's just outshined by bomber. Lately I've noticed ladder games often end up being pure bombers/explodets with one other plane for bomb carrying. Bomber/explodet simply offer superior map control to _every other plane_ out there, so there's not much reason to pick anything else unless you're extremely good with it. Especially neutral bomb maps turn out to be cluster****s where both teams are forced to pick heavy planes to control the bomb spawn. Not very fun.. hopefully the devs are aware of this problem.
[Y]
01-28-2010, 06:22 PM
Even if lam/karl were aware of this problem (if it even is one), how would they go about fixing it? They would either have to heavily modify the currently existing planes, or introduce a new plane altogether (something that we all know isn't going to happen for years or ever).
I suppose some new red perks for biplane/loopy/randa could alleviate the issue a bit, but I'll leave that for someone else to address in the suggestions forum.
I suppose some new red perks for biplane/loopy/randa could alleviate the issue a bit, but I'll leave that for someone else to address in the suggestions forum.
Esoteric
01-28-2010, 06:28 PM
I think a good amount of plane balancing is through map design. I've noticed biplane to be more effective on grotto than other maps, for instance (and bomber/explodet slightly less effective.) We need fresh maps.
DMCM
01-28-2010, 09:05 PM
I don't wanna be THAT GUY and say explodet is overpowered, but a plane that can shoot fast rockets with huge radius that take half your health and stall you... it's kinda obvious why every team wants to have 3 of them. And then to counter those explodets the teams must also have bombers so it's basically a cluster**** of heavy planes where a recoiless biplane, a trickster or a loopy will get destroyed in a fraction of a second.
5v5 is the standard game mode and I agree it's the best, but if out of 10 planes 8 are heavy (like one game I just played on ladder) it'll be less fun and half the players on the game will have no place in those games. Instead of nerfing explodet (which wouldn't be such a crazy idea by the way, it's still by far the most powerful plane) I suggest teams have some control and try to play a more balanced set up... 1 of each plane for example is actually a fun plane build.
5v5 is the standard game mode and I agree it's the best, but if out of 10 planes 8 are heavy (like one game I just played on ladder) it'll be less fun and half the players on the game will have no place in those games. Instead of nerfing explodet (which wouldn't be such a crazy idea by the way, it's still by far the most powerful plane) I suggest teams have some control and try to play a more balanced set up... 1 of each plane for example is actually a fun plane build.
nesnl
01-28-2010, 09:38 PM
Hopefully one day in the future we will be able to get a full list of stats from games on the server such as planes and perks selected and the entire combat log. Once we get this then we can actually post stats on the most used planes and the most used perks.
But I agree with Esoteric that the game itself is balanced enough and that in order to get a mix of planes you need to do the final balancing on the map design. Current maps lend themselves to certain planes.
But I agree with Esoteric that the game itself is balanced enough and that in order to get a mix of planes you need to do the final balancing on the map design. Current maps lend themselves to certain planes.
Esoteric
01-28-2010, 09:56 PM
Oh, and plea for new maps aside, explodets still could probably use a small nerf. Rocket explosion radius and mine knockback might be reasonable places to look.
nobodyhome
01-28-2010, 10:00 PM
I think now the main problem is in thermo, who was already somewhat imba before the patch (but overshadowed by remote) but then got an additional buff.
Evan20000
01-28-2010, 10:34 PM
I think part of the reason maps like Asteroids are so well liked is that every plane/perk is viable on them. That, and the nice background.
nesnl
01-28-2010, 10:38 PM
I think part of the reason maps like Asteroids are so well liked is that every plane/perk is viable on them. That, and the nice background.
I think Asteroids is so well liked because Mirandas can sit back in their base and shoot people through the cracks in the rocks thereby eliminating the need to even expose themselves for even the mircosecond it usually takes to pop out shoot and reverse.
I think Asteroids is so well liked because Mirandas can sit back in their base and shoot people through the cracks in the rocks thereby eliminating the need to even expose themselves for even the mircosecond it usually takes to pop out shoot and reverse.
Pieface
01-28-2010, 11:17 PM
I for one am certainly looking forward to a day when teams are balanced automatically and the map is chosen randomly so we get more game variety. Hopefully such a day will appear sooner rather than later *hint hint*.
nobodyhome
01-28-2010, 11:59 PM
I for one am certainly looking forward to a day when teams are balanced automatically and the map is chosen randomly so we get more game variety. Hopefully such a day will appear sooner rather than later *hint hint*.
Lemme reiterate a point I made in another thread that I feels repeating as very few people understand this yet.
Let me reiterate once again that we have absolutely zero control over what happens in the game, all we do is examine the logs and then report the results. Information flows entirely from the game to the ladder, not at all the other way around.
Thus under the current system it's impossible to control absolutely anything that happens in game, whether it be balancing or map picking.
Lemme reiterate a point I made in another thread that I feels repeating as very few people understand this yet.
Let me reiterate once again that we have absolutely zero control over what happens in the game, all we do is examine the logs and then report the results. Information flows entirely from the game to the ladder, not at all the other way around.
Thus under the current system it's impossible to control absolutely anything that happens in game, whether it be balancing or map picking.
Pieface
01-29-2010, 12:02 AM
Yeah, I realize that you guys don't have control over what goes on in-game. I was instead referring to a comment Maimer made at some point saying that you guys were talking to the devs about one day possibly adding a couple of server commands related to team balance and random map-selection.
It's certainly something to hope for, even if it takes a while to ever become reality.
It's certainly something to hope for, even if it takes a while to ever become reality.
nesnl
01-29-2010, 02:38 AM
I like that nobodyhome reiterated a quote in which he was reiterating. That made my day.
nobodyhome
01-29-2010, 03:12 AM
Go on, why don't someone else ask me if we can autobalance in game. Then I can reiterate my reiteration of the first reiteration. I dare you.
[Y]
01-29-2010, 03:26 AM
You mean the /vote balanceteams function?
Evan20000
01-29-2010, 03:28 AM
Thus under the current system it's impossible to control absolutely anything that happens in game, whether it be balancing or map picking.
Nobo, you should take this post, make it it's own thread and sticky it :P
Nobo, you should take this post, make it it's own thread and sticky it :P
Torrent
01-29-2010, 07:17 PM
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/4228/picture1td.png
i've only had one game and im #79
i've only had one game and im #79
Sarah Palin
01-30-2010, 04:45 AM
Check it out, I'm now officially the worst player in Alti:
http://www.altitudeladder.net/ladder.php?sort=rank_d
from #10 to #328 in just five days! I'd like to thank my coach, and Jesus, and Bill Belicheat, and especially Mav for losing every game we play together. : D
http://www.altitudeladder.net/ladder.php?sort=rank_d
from #10 to #328 in just five days! I'd like to thank my coach, and Jesus, and Bill Belicheat, and especially Mav for losing every game we play together. : D
Evan20000
01-30-2010, 05:32 PM
I'm no far behind you. I don't care so much about my rank as getting some decent competative games in though.
Sarah Palin
01-31-2010, 04:00 AM
Interestin stats:
"ladder A" (the official ladder): The points of the top twenty five players on the ladder by rank add up to 46470.
"ladder B": The points of the top twenty five players with the highest win percentages (who have played at least 10 games) add up to 45070.
"ladder C": The points of the top twenty five players with the most wins add up to 45027.
I was looking for some kind of correlation (specifically I suspected a correlation between A and C) but it's difficult to detect anything because B and C are so close together... which, when you think about it, seems to be more of a coincidence than anything - there's no reason for it to necessarily be so. If for example a group of very mediocre players (1500 rank) played hundreds of games they would shoot to the top of ladder C, yet bring down its point total.
If B and C ever diverge significantly it will be interesting to see if A stays closer to B (i.e., the ladder rewards high win %) or C (i.e., it rewards more games played).
"ladder A" (the official ladder): The points of the top twenty five players on the ladder by rank add up to 46470.
"ladder B": The points of the top twenty five players with the highest win percentages (who have played at least 10 games) add up to 45070.
"ladder C": The points of the top twenty five players with the most wins add up to 45027.
I was looking for some kind of correlation (specifically I suspected a correlation between A and C) but it's difficult to detect anything because B and C are so close together... which, when you think about it, seems to be more of a coincidence than anything - there's no reason for it to necessarily be so. If for example a group of very mediocre players (1500 rank) played hundreds of games they would shoot to the top of ladder C, yet bring down its point total.
If B and C ever diverge significantly it will be interesting to see if A stays closer to B (i.e., the ladder rewards high win %) or C (i.e., it rewards more games played).
DiogenesDog
01-31-2010, 09:06 AM
From ELO ladders I've seen in the past, A & C are always going to be close together. As long as you're a winning player overall, playing lots of games is always going to keep you ahead. You'll just keep creeping forward, slowly but surely.
Varonth
02-01-2010, 03:24 PM
Here are some matchvideos of the altitude ladder:
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 22:14 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr2z7xLxmkQ)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:07 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGZ_Icr8rmg)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:07 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGS-462taHY)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:28 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNvV986xbXc)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:28 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezGxlcE3lMY)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 22:14 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr2z7xLxmkQ)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:07 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGZ_Icr8rmg)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:07 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGS-462taHY)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:28 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNvV986xbXc)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:28 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezGxlcE3lMY)
wolf'j'max
02-01-2010, 03:35 PM
Here they are, the first matchvideos of the altitude ladder:
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 22:14 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr2z7xLxmkQ)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:07 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGZ_Icr8rmg)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:07 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGS-462taHY)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:28 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNvV986xbXc)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:28 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezGxlcE3lMY)
go here (youtube.com/tyraltitude) and watch the first 6 ladder matches O_o
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 22:14 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr2z7xLxmkQ)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:07 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGZ_Icr8rmg)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:07 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGS-462taHY)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:28 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNvV986xbXc)
Laddermatch Jan-31-10 23:28 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezGxlcE3lMY)
go here (youtube.com/tyraltitude) and watch the first 6 ladder matches O_o
Varonth
02-01-2010, 03:40 PM
go here (youtube.com/tyraltitude) and watch the first 6 ladder matches O_o
K, didn't know that.
K, didn't know that.
ufo
02-02-2010, 01:39 AM
Great games, u should definitely put them to some crazy German jamz or something, I've heard nothing but gold outta your country.
On a side note, I'm still procrastinating the thing i was supposed to do last night. PROCRASTINATRON POWERS ON!
On a side note, I'm still procrastinating the thing i was supposed to do last night. PROCRASTINATRON POWERS ON!
eth
02-02-2010, 01:50 AM
Very cool stuff man, watching now.
PROCRASTINATION POWERS ON!
e: man that first match was sick.. UFO ftw @_@
PROCRASTINATION POWERS ON!
e: man that first match was sick.. UFO ftw @_@
Shiro
02-02-2010, 02:38 AM
go here (youtube.com/tyraltitude) and watch the first 6 ladder matches O_o
maybe you should put it on capturemode and don't "chase" the people?
maybe you should put it on capturemode and don't "chase" the people?
nesnl
02-02-2010, 11:48 AM
The changelog for the Altitude Ladder has been updated. Please review it to familiarize yourself with the changes.
Added features: Website based autobalance based on player ratings, tracking of player diconnects from ladder games.
Added features: Website based autobalance based on player ratings, tracking of player diconnects from ladder games.
Varonth
02-02-2010, 02:28 PM
Here are two new matches:
Laddermatch Feb-01-10 21:16 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11vRB8ba1XQ)
Laddermatch Feb-01-10 21:25 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnNcNaM-v0I)
Laddermatch Feb-01-10 21:25 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnhk5ObOc_c)
Laddermatch Feb-01-10 21:16 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11vRB8ba1XQ)
Laddermatch Feb-01-10 21:25 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnNcNaM-v0I)
Laddermatch Feb-01-10 21:25 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnhk5ObOc_c)
nach0king
02-03-2010, 11:53 PM
I love how the ladder website says this:
The ladder passed 100 active players sometime last night. It is great to see people getting involved and enjoying the ladder. Make sure to let your friends know about the ladder so that the ladder will continue to grow.
... even though if you're not *on* the ladder you won't get picked for a team, no matter how long you've sat and specced. People who come in five seconds before picking start get selected instead.
It's natural that it was going to work out this way, so I'm not surprised, but the hypocrisy on the website about getting people involved to come and join in only to show up and not be allowed to play is pretty sickening.
The ladder passed 100 active players sometime last night. It is great to see people getting involved and enjoying the ladder. Make sure to let your friends know about the ladder so that the ladder will continue to grow.
... even though if you're not *on* the ladder you won't get picked for a team, no matter how long you've sat and specced. People who come in five seconds before picking start get selected instead.
It's natural that it was going to work out this way, so I'm not surprised, but the hypocrisy on the website about getting people involved to come and join in only to show up and not be allowed to play is pretty sickening.
nobodyhome
02-04-2010, 12:04 AM
I love how the ladder website says this:
... even though if you're not *on* the ladder you won't get picked for a team, no matter how long you've sat and specced. People who come in five seconds before picking start get selected instead.
It's natural that it was going to work out this way, so I'm not surprised, but the hypocrisy on the website about getting people involved to come and join in only to show up and not be allowed to play is pretty sickening.
IMO they should just password the website and this thread as well, rather than getting peoples' hopes up, because if your face doesn't fit and you're not already on the ladder there is absolutely no point in trying to take part.
??
Not sure who you're trying to criticize here. The words on the website are representative of the opinions of the ladder creators (me, eth, and Maimer). Personally, whenever I see that lesser-skilled players have been sitting in the game for a long time I try to include them in the next game (by asking them to be captain, for example). I've seen other people try to include unknown players in their games too sometimes.
But our words aren't representative of the ladder population at large. We can't force people to include lesser-skilled players in their teams, especially when points are at stake. The ladder creators (the same ones who wrote the words you've quoted) have done everything in our power to try to make the ladder inclusive for everyone, including getting out an autobalance feature out within TWO WEEKS of the ladder's inception, which helps because then people don't have to worry about noobs bringing down their team because they know their team is ratings-balanced with the other team. It's not "hypocrisy" that when we say that the ladder is meant for everyone, we are honestly trying to make it to be.
But short of banning people for not including noobs (which we won't do), there is nothing else that we can do about the problem (perhaps you have some ideas to suggest). The best thing you can do to get yourself some play time is to go to some other servers and grab a group of 10 like-skilled players in which you can play ladder games amongst yourselves. There is certainly room to do so--there are 3 ladder servers and only 1-2 of them are full at any given time.
... even though if you're not *on* the ladder you won't get picked for a team, no matter how long you've sat and specced. People who come in five seconds before picking start get selected instead.
It's natural that it was going to work out this way, so I'm not surprised, but the hypocrisy on the website about getting people involved to come and join in only to show up and not be allowed to play is pretty sickening.
IMO they should just password the website and this thread as well, rather than getting peoples' hopes up, because if your face doesn't fit and you're not already on the ladder there is absolutely no point in trying to take part.
??
Not sure who you're trying to criticize here. The words on the website are representative of the opinions of the ladder creators (me, eth, and Maimer). Personally, whenever I see that lesser-skilled players have been sitting in the game for a long time I try to include them in the next game (by asking them to be captain, for example). I've seen other people try to include unknown players in their games too sometimes.
But our words aren't representative of the ladder population at large. We can't force people to include lesser-skilled players in their teams, especially when points are at stake. The ladder creators (the same ones who wrote the words you've quoted) have done everything in our power to try to make the ladder inclusive for everyone, including getting out an autobalance feature out within TWO WEEKS of the ladder's inception, which helps because then people don't have to worry about noobs bringing down their team because they know their team is ratings-balanced with the other team. It's not "hypocrisy" that when we say that the ladder is meant for everyone, we are honestly trying to make it to be.
But short of banning people for not including noobs (which we won't do), there is nothing else that we can do about the problem (perhaps you have some ideas to suggest). The best thing you can do to get yourself some play time is to go to some other servers and grab a group of 10 like-skilled players in which you can play ladder games amongst yourselves. There is certainly room to do so--there are 3 ladder servers and only 1-2 of them are full at any given time.
eth
02-04-2010, 12:07 AM
I love how the ladder website says this:
... even though if you're not *on* the ladder you won't get picked for a team, no matter how long you've sat and specced. People who come in five seconds before picking start get selected instead.
It's natural that it was going to work out this way, so I'm not surprised, but the hypocrisy on the website about getting people involved to come and join in only to show up and not be allowed to play is pretty sickening.
IMO they should just password the website and this thread as well, rather than getting peoples' hopes up, because if your face doesn't fit and you're not already on the ladder there is absolutely no point in trying to take part.
I find it pretty absurd that you get pissed over that as "hypocrisy". We were proud to have made something that 100 players had taken part in, that's why we wrote it. Sorry, we can't IN ANY WAY control how players make their games, that's up to you players. Have your friends start a game with you or whatever, or use the autobalance feature we just made - 10 people join teams, autobalance according to website and play. One of the reasons we made autobalance in the first place was that everyone could play on reasonably balanced teams, not only those who are exceptionally skilled / well-known.
I seriously have no idea why you think we're some kinda sick organization trying to make a profit or whatever, what we want is for everyone to have fun on our ladder. If you're not having fun, leave us some suggestions for improvement and we will do our best, instead of jumping at our throats for a newspost, that isn't gonna get anybody anywhere.
... even though if you're not *on* the ladder you won't get picked for a team, no matter how long you've sat and specced. People who come in five seconds before picking start get selected instead.
It's natural that it was going to work out this way, so I'm not surprised, but the hypocrisy on the website about getting people involved to come and join in only to show up and not be allowed to play is pretty sickening.
IMO they should just password the website and this thread as well, rather than getting peoples' hopes up, because if your face doesn't fit and you're not already on the ladder there is absolutely no point in trying to take part.
I find it pretty absurd that you get pissed over that as "hypocrisy". We were proud to have made something that 100 players had taken part in, that's why we wrote it. Sorry, we can't IN ANY WAY control how players make their games, that's up to you players. Have your friends start a game with you or whatever, or use the autobalance feature we just made - 10 people join teams, autobalance according to website and play. One of the reasons we made autobalance in the first place was that everyone could play on reasonably balanced teams, not only those who are exceptionally skilled / well-known.
I seriously have no idea why you think we're some kinda sick organization trying to make a profit or whatever, what we want is for everyone to have fun on our ladder. If you're not having fun, leave us some suggestions for improvement and we will do our best, instead of jumping at our throats for a newspost, that isn't gonna get anybody anywhere.
nach0king
02-04-2010, 12:26 AM
Well, it's got me a reply, so it's clearly a start.
As I said in my post, it is obvious that any kind of competitive ladder is going to work out this way - the best players will club together to get the best results. That is natural. But it is completely and totally incompatible with an idea that this ladder should grow.
The only way I can currently get involved is when there are 10, maybe 11 players looking for a game. Any more than that and people go into teams of well-known.
Suggestions for improvement? I don't know. I'm not a game designer. I do know that inviting new players to come to a tournament that is not designed for new players is hypocritical, though. If you agree, I'm sure you'll think of something. If you disagree, fair enough.
As I said in my post, it is obvious that any kind of competitive ladder is going to work out this way - the best players will club together to get the best results. That is natural. But it is completely and totally incompatible with an idea that this ladder should grow.
The only way I can currently get involved is when there are 10, maybe 11 players looking for a game. Any more than that and people go into teams of well-known.
Suggestions for improvement? I don't know. I'm not a game designer. I do know that inviting new players to come to a tournament that is not designed for new players is hypocritical, though. If you agree, I'm sure you'll think of something. If you disagree, fair enough.
nobodyhome
02-04-2010, 12:34 AM
Suggestions for improvement? I don't know. I'm not a game designer. I do know that inviting new players to come to a tournament that is not designed for new players is hypocritical, though. If you agree, I'm sure you'll think of something. If you disagree, fair enough.
It's not hypocritical. We want it to be for everyone, new players included. New players can simply play amongst themselves on the ladder if people tend to exclude them.
I'm not a game designer either (do I look like lam or karl to you?). I just wrote this ladder out of my own free time for the enjoyment of others. Not sure why you need to be a game designer to try to improve what is essentially a SOCIAL TENDENCIES problem rather than a game problem.
It's not hypocritical. We want it to be for everyone, new players included. New players can simply play amongst themselves on the ladder if people tend to exclude them.
I'm not a game designer either (do I look like lam or karl to you?). I just wrote this ladder out of my own free time for the enjoyment of others. Not sure why you need to be a game designer to try to improve what is essentially a SOCIAL TENDENCIES problem rather than a game problem.
nach0king
02-04-2010, 12:36 AM
Well, as I have no suggestions for improvement, I suppose my part in this conversation is over. Best of luck.
eth
02-04-2010, 12:37 AM
You didn't seem to read our responses though. We're not game designers either. We're altitude fans who wanted a to make a ladder, this is why the first rating algorithm was extremely flawed, and why we didn't have autobalance in at launch. So, helping out with suggestions has nothing to do with being a "game designer". It's about being constructive.
Ladder isn't supposed to be a hard-core tournament, but as you say yourself people want the best chance of winning and thus unheard-of players are unlikely to get a spot. As I wrote in my post(and you would know this if you had bothered to read it), we implemented autobalance partly because of this. The matches I played with autobalance on yesterday turned out to be fairly great, with some skilled players and some who used reverse dumb-bombs. But it was fairly fun. I really suggest you try to get people to use the autobalance feature, I bet it'll increase your odds of playing drastically.
As for your continued "hypocrisy", we invite you to join a ladder. We don't try to sell you some kinda hair-gel that puts you in debt to your knees. Seriously, the hell is with that.
Ladder isn't supposed to be a hard-core tournament, but as you say yourself people want the best chance of winning and thus unheard-of players are unlikely to get a spot. As I wrote in my post(and you would know this if you had bothered to read it), we implemented autobalance partly because of this. The matches I played with autobalance on yesterday turned out to be fairly great, with some skilled players and some who used reverse dumb-bombs. But it was fairly fun. I really suggest you try to get people to use the autobalance feature, I bet it'll increase your odds of playing drastically.
As for your continued "hypocrisy", we invite you to join a ladder. We don't try to sell you some kinda hair-gel that puts you in debt to your knees. Seriously, the hell is with that.
nach0king
02-04-2010, 12:42 AM
I did read it. I have no response to make. Get over it.
nobodyhome
02-04-2010, 12:44 AM
I've also just noticed that you went ahead and got to play a ladder game just now. Congratulations, the ladder is officially for everyone.
nach0king
02-04-2010, 12:45 AM
Problem solved, then!
Triped
02-04-2010, 01:16 AM
...
Out of curiosity, what happens to rankings if set A of players never plays with set B of players, and set B is much worse? Would their best player rank as high as A's best player, roughly?
Out of curiosity, what happens to rankings if set A of players never plays with set B of players, and set B is much worse? Would their best player rank as high as A's best player, roughly?
nesnl
02-04-2010, 02:31 AM
...
Out of curiosity, what happens to rankings if set A of players never plays with set B of players, and set B is much worse? Would their best player rank as high as A's best player, roughly?
Not really sure what you are getting at, but in situations like this there is constant cross over between who plays who. This means that although I may never play you specifically, I will most likely play a lot of the same people that you play. This means that the ratings of you and I, while we have never directly faced each other, should skill somewhat represent our skill as the ratings are based off the same population of people.
To Nacho King, we are looking for ways to circumvent this exact issue in the future. We know that this problem exists and have been thinking of ways around it. We may put in a system that allows for everyone who wants to play to enter into a "pool" of potential players on the server. Then a function would be executed that would balance the teams and assign spectators based on wait time. This way, no one could be excluded. Let me know if you like this idea.
Out of curiosity, what happens to rankings if set A of players never plays with set B of players, and set B is much worse? Would their best player rank as high as A's best player, roughly?
Not really sure what you are getting at, but in situations like this there is constant cross over between who plays who. This means that although I may never play you specifically, I will most likely play a lot of the same people that you play. This means that the ratings of you and I, while we have never directly faced each other, should skill somewhat represent our skill as the ratings are based off the same population of people.
To Nacho King, we are looking for ways to circumvent this exact issue in the future. We know that this problem exists and have been thinking of ways around it. We may put in a system that allows for everyone who wants to play to enter into a "pool" of potential players on the server. Then a function would be executed that would balance the teams and assign spectators based on wait time. This way, no one could be excluded. Let me know if you like this idea.
nach0king
02-04-2010, 11:51 AM
To Nacho King, we are looking for ways to circumvent this exact issue in the future. We know that this problem exists and have been thinking of ways around it. We may put in a system that allows for everyone who wants to play to enter into a "pool" of potential players on the server. Then a function would be executed that would balance the teams and assign spectators based on wait time. This way, no one could be excluded. Let me know if you like this idea.
I think that is a brilliant idea, as I think the real barrier to entry here is wait time. Some doylum above indicated that because I had played one ladder match there was no issue here; he presumably didn't know how long I'd waited for it.
I would love to see such a feature introduced, if only on one or two of the ladder servers.
Thank you for your response.
I think that is a brilliant idea, as I think the real barrier to entry here is wait time. Some doylum above indicated that because I had played one ladder match there was no issue here; he presumably didn't know how long I'd waited for it.
I would love to see such a feature introduced, if only on one or two of the ladder servers.
Thank you for your response.
eth
02-04-2010, 12:03 PM
Even a thank you can be a **** you.
Impressive!
Impressive!
andy
02-04-2010, 12:54 PM
first: thank you for all your tough work.
second: this ladder thing is amazing!
third: keep it up, your improving it every day, its awesome.
if you need help with servers im GMT+1 and available for moderating your servers..
second: this ladder thing is amazing!
third: keep it up, your improving it every day, its awesome.
if you need help with servers im GMT+1 and available for moderating your servers..
Jayfourke
02-04-2010, 02:00 PM
I'd like to make a point about people from the ladder jumping in to other servers and advertising/shouting/spamming/frothing at the mouth to join their precious ladder games.
Quit it, it's bloody annoying. Earlier, Andy invaded a perfectly good match in official #3, dragged a bunch of players, and totally ruined the fun of the ongoing game.
Keep your soliciting to PMs, please (they're easier to ignore). I'll play ladder as and when I damn well please, not just to make up numbers.
tyvm, kthxbai.
Quit it, it's bloody annoying. Earlier, Andy invaded a perfectly good match in official #3, dragged a bunch of players, and totally ruined the fun of the ongoing game.
Keep your soliciting to PMs, please (they're easier to ignore). I'll play ladder as and when I damn well please, not just to make up numbers.
tyvm, kthxbai.
Triped
02-04-2010, 03:07 PM
Not really sure what you are getting at, but in situations like this there is constant cross over between who plays who. This means that although I may never play you specifically, I will most likely play a lot of the same people that you play. This means that the ratings of you and I, while we have never directly faced each other, should skill somewhat represent our skill as the ratings are based off the same population of people.
I was thinking about what would happen if you guys encouraged players to join different servers based on skill. For example, say Ladder 1 was where pros tended to go, mediocre players don't get picked, etc. And Ladder 2 was where the mediocre/good players went, made a good effort to pick fairly, etc. Like you say, there would inevitably be enough crossover to make comparisons.
If one group barely ever played against another, though, you'd have some funny rank behavior. For example, say Player A, who sucks, got on a good team and managed to beat Tyr's team. If he never played Tyr again, he'd be inflating the ranks of everyone he played against who hadn't played against anyone else within X degrees of separation from Tyr. This is all speculation since you aren't segregating the ladder, of course.
I was thinking about what would happen if you guys encouraged players to join different servers based on skill. For example, say Ladder 1 was where pros tended to go, mediocre players don't get picked, etc. And Ladder 2 was where the mediocre/good players went, made a good effort to pick fairly, etc. Like you say, there would inevitably be enough crossover to make comparisons.
If one group barely ever played against another, though, you'd have some funny rank behavior. For example, say Player A, who sucks, got on a good team and managed to beat Tyr's team. If he never played Tyr again, he'd be inflating the ranks of everyone he played against who hadn't played against anyone else within X degrees of separation from Tyr. This is all speculation since you aren't segregating the ladder, of course.
protest boy
02-04-2010, 11:18 PM
I think you guys should extend the cutoff for this ladder 'season' from March 15th to something much later. For those of us who can't afford to play many games a day (thereby getting a more accurate rating) it's hard to compete for the top spots in such a short time period (1.5 months). How about seasons that last 3 months?
Tosconi
02-04-2010, 11:59 PM
well i just really hope, that after the dead line - the ladder will either go further in the way it is, or gets restarted. The main point is that it remains. Coz i'd never played so many wonderful competitive games so often, before the ladder was introduced.
nesnl
02-05-2010, 04:35 AM
We haven't decided what we are going to do come March 15th. We may reset the ratings or we may not. We might adopt a new rating system that incorporates things such as map of the week or other things. Ideally we are going to be incorporating all the new stats in the logs so that we can print out plane usage, perk usage, kills, deaths, base damage, etc.
The ladder will continue after March 15th, no matter what happens with the ratings or the system. We are continually working to make it a better system everyday. We also hope to expand the amount of servers as well as game types available.
The ladder will continue after March 15th, no matter what happens with the ratings or the system. We are continually working to make it a better system everyday. We also hope to expand the amount of servers as well as game types available.
Flyngbanana
02-05-2010, 11:25 AM
So you're thinking of resetting the ladder? o.0 Please don't. People will be finally getting towards their actual skill level ratings. I see no reason to delete these games from the system. It would annoy a lot of people who have put a lot of time playing in order to see where they are in the altitude community.
Triped
02-05-2010, 02:14 PM
Don't forget the third option: archiving the rankings from old ladder seasons for review. And possibly keeping an all-time ladder score alongside the current ladder season.
Tosconi
02-05-2010, 02:27 PM
"It would annoy a lot of people who have put a lot of time playing in order to see where they are in the altitude community."
eeh - you mean the first 15? I'm pretty sure, that 80% (like 300 ppl of 350 right now) would't get annoyed with that :/
eeh - you mean the first 15? I'm pretty sure, that 80% (like 300 ppl of 350 right now) would't get annoyed with that :/
Flyngbanana
02-05-2010, 02:36 PM
"It would annoy a lot of people who have put a lot of time playing in order to see where they are in the altitude community."
eeh - you mean the first 15? I'm pretty sure, that 80% (like 300 ppl of 350 right now) would't get annoyed with that :/
I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of those who are not in the bottom 50 of the ladder don't want it to be reset. I for one would probably stop playing the ladder if it gets reset.
What purpose would a reset achieve?
eeh - you mean the first 15? I'm pretty sure, that 80% (like 300 ppl of 350 right now) would't get annoyed with that :/
I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of those who are not in the bottom 50 of the ladder don't want it to be reset. I for one would probably stop playing the ladder if it gets reset.
What purpose would a reset achieve?
Tosconi
02-05-2010, 02:42 PM
well, I would only reset the ratings while having games played and win/loss stats stay.
[Y]
02-05-2010, 02:58 PM
Maybe a complete reset while keeping the current stats, resulting in two leaderboards; one with stats from since the beginning of the ladder and a second one that gets reset after each ladder season.
eth
02-05-2010, 03:19 PM
I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of those who are not in the bottom 50 of the ladder don't want it to be reset. I for one would probably stop playing the ladder if it gets reset.
What purpose would a reset achieve?
To give everyone a fresh start, newbs and pros alike. Hopefully we will be able to find a new prize for Season 2, and assuming we do, a rating reset at least seems necessary to me - if we don't, people who are at 2200 rating now can just camp it out in Season 2 and collect the prize at the end.
What purpose would a reset achieve?
To give everyone a fresh start, newbs and pros alike. Hopefully we will be able to find a new prize for Season 2, and assuming we do, a rating reset at least seems necessary to me - if we don't, people who are at 2200 rating now can just camp it out in Season 2 and collect the prize at the end.
protest boy
02-05-2010, 04:15 PM
Don't forget the third option: archiving the rankings from old ladder seasons for review. And possibly keeping an all-time ladder score alongside the current ladder season.
Once again, a Lobstar rises his antennae out of the briny deep and comes up with a good solution.
I understand we don't want people to just sit on high ladder rankings without playing games to maintain those rankings. But at the same time, the more games are played, the more accurate those rankings are. That's why I think a longer ladder season might be a good compromise. I also like the idea of keeping 'all-time' ladder statistics.
But whatever is decided, excellent work guys! I really don't care so much about the ladder as I do about the good games it produces!
Once again, a Lobstar rises his antennae out of the briny deep and comes up with a good solution.
I understand we don't want people to just sit on high ladder rankings without playing games to maintain those rankings. But at the same time, the more games are played, the more accurate those rankings are. That's why I think a longer ladder season might be a good compromise. I also like the idea of keeping 'all-time' ladder statistics.
But whatever is decided, excellent work guys! I really don't care so much about the ladder as I do about the good games it produces!
tec27
02-05-2010, 04:28 PM
I don't really care what you guys do as long as you add a snazzy graph for ratings so I can see my ascent to greatness.
Flyngbanana
02-05-2010, 06:35 PM
Don't forget the third option: archiving the rankings from old ladder seasons for review. And possibly keeping an all-time ladder score alongside the current ladder season.
Once again, a Lobstar rises his antennae out of the briny deep and comes up with a good solution.
I understand we don't want people to just sit on high ladder rankings without playing games to maintain those rankings. But at the same time, the more games are played, the more accurate those rankings are. That's why I think a longer ladder season might be a good compromise. I also like the idea of keeping 'all-time' ladder statistics.
But whatever is decided, excellent work guys! I really don't care so much about the ladder as I do about the good games it produces!
I just see the ladder as a general board for seeing peoples ranking in the community. The more games played, the more accurate the ranking. What I don't get is resetting everything arbitrarily at the end of a 'season'. Perhaps if you're worried about people sitting on their rankings, add a decay to the scores each month.
An all time scoreboard would be a great solution too :)
Once again, a Lobstar rises his antennae out of the briny deep and comes up with a good solution.
I understand we don't want people to just sit on high ladder rankings without playing games to maintain those rankings. But at the same time, the more games are played, the more accurate those rankings are. That's why I think a longer ladder season might be a good compromise. I also like the idea of keeping 'all-time' ladder statistics.
But whatever is decided, excellent work guys! I really don't care so much about the ladder as I do about the good games it produces!
I just see the ladder as a general board for seeing peoples ranking in the community. The more games played, the more accurate the ranking. What I don't get is resetting everything arbitrarily at the end of a 'season'. Perhaps if you're worried about people sitting on their rankings, add a decay to the scores each month.
An all time scoreboard would be a great solution too :)
nobodyhome
02-05-2010, 08:53 PM
The reasons why the ladder should be reset is manyfold:
1. As indicated by the stamp on the upper left corner of the banner on the altitude ladder website, this ladder is clearly in "BETA". What this means is that we have tons of new features coming soon, especially with the onset of lam's recent patch, and that we would like to start off with a clean slate sometime in order to let these features kick in cleanly too. This is also why our ladder is going to reset sooner rather than later.
2. The ladder, in my mind, is more like competition as opposed to a lifetime rating. This is why we have prizes at the end of it--we are rewarding you for your achievement and strong play during the particular ladder season, as opposed to rewarding you for just being good. As such it wouldn't make sense to carry these points on over to the next.
3. In my experience with iCCup and the D2 ladders, a ladder reset is the most exciting time of a ladder. Everyone starts playing at a frantic pace and at greater volumes during the beginning of the ladder, as everybody vies to get at the top of the ladder before others do. If we just leave the ladder all the time without resets, we would never get to enjoy times like these.
1. As indicated by the stamp on the upper left corner of the banner on the altitude ladder website, this ladder is clearly in "BETA". What this means is that we have tons of new features coming soon, especially with the onset of lam's recent patch, and that we would like to start off with a clean slate sometime in order to let these features kick in cleanly too. This is also why our ladder is going to reset sooner rather than later.
2. The ladder, in my mind, is more like competition as opposed to a lifetime rating. This is why we have prizes at the end of it--we are rewarding you for your achievement and strong play during the particular ladder season, as opposed to rewarding you for just being good. As such it wouldn't make sense to carry these points on over to the next.
3. In my experience with iCCup and the D2 ladders, a ladder reset is the most exciting time of a ladder. Everyone starts playing at a frantic pace and at greater volumes during the beginning of the ladder, as everybody vies to get at the top of the ladder before others do. If we just leave the ladder all the time without resets, we would never get to enjoy times like these.
eth
02-05-2010, 09:52 PM
I think having a separate page for all-time ladderstats is a good idea though.. if we could update it once per season it might even be efficient to implement!
protest boy
02-06-2010, 12:30 AM
To whomever has access to the ladder data in an easy to use format:
I would love to see an "average game duration" organized by map.
I would love to see an "average game duration" organized by map.
Flyngbanana
02-06-2010, 01:47 AM
Okay those are good reasons. Go ahead and reset it :(
An all time ladder stats would be nice though :)
An all time ladder stats would be nice though :)
nesnl
02-06-2010, 02:36 AM
To whomever has access to the ladder data in an easy to use format:
I would love to see an "average game duration" organized by map.
We are planning on implementing map specific pages that will include stats in the future. We were originally working with limited information, but now that lamster/karl has been so kind and come through so fast on providing us with basically every stat imaginable. So taking this into account, we will probably work on implementing all the new stats and try to roll them out in the best fashion possible. The TODO list grows longer everyday. I now appreciate what lamster/karl do more now than ever.
Also, as a quick update to the ladder website. Eth has finished the "Match Details" page. This new page is accessible from either the master match list (which can be found by clicking on the "Total Games" Number on the News page) or by navigating to someone's profile and clicking "Match List" followed by clicking on "Match Details" next to the match you want to view.
This new Match Details page provides many stats for each player in the game including their average point gain/loss on that specific map as well as if they disconnected in that match or how many times they were ping kicked. It also includes a display of whether the match was autobalanced using the website's autobalance feature as well as giving a "Match Quality" score. The Match Quality is a percent that is based on both how well balanced the teams were (as in percentage to win) combined with how much variance there are between the ratings of the players in the game.
I would love to see an "average game duration" organized by map.
We are planning on implementing map specific pages that will include stats in the future. We were originally working with limited information, but now that lamster/karl has been so kind and come through so fast on providing us with basically every stat imaginable. So taking this into account, we will probably work on implementing all the new stats and try to roll them out in the best fashion possible. The TODO list grows longer everyday. I now appreciate what lamster/karl do more now than ever.
Also, as a quick update to the ladder website. Eth has finished the "Match Details" page. This new page is accessible from either the master match list (which can be found by clicking on the "Total Games" Number on the News page) or by navigating to someone's profile and clicking "Match List" followed by clicking on "Match Details" next to the match you want to view.
This new Match Details page provides many stats for each player in the game including their average point gain/loss on that specific map as well as if they disconnected in that match or how many times they were ping kicked. It also includes a display of whether the match was autobalanced using the website's autobalance feature as well as giving a "Match Quality" score. The Match Quality is a percent that is based on both how well balanced the teams were (as in percentage to win) combined with how much variance there are between the ratings of the players in the game.
Tosconi
02-06-2010, 02:57 AM
I've got a question on a ping kicks stats. Right now I have 7 of them. But the point is that i was ping kicked 6 times from 1 single match (coz my flatmates started to download something like 5 minutes after the match was started). Can maybe the ping kick stats be connected with the numbers of matches, from which ppl get kicked and not with the number of actual kicks?
eth
02-06-2010, 03:22 AM
I've got a question on a ping kicks stats. Right now I have 7 of them. But the point is that i was ping kicked 6 times from 1 single match (coz my flatmates started to download something like 5 minutes after the match was started). Can maybe the ping kick stats be connected with the numbers of matches, from which ppl get kicked and not with the number of actual kicks?
Mmmmyeah I can see where you're coming from but like, if we were to display that in addition to the other ping/leave stats, it'd be a lot of stuff just centered on that. If you only have 7 pingkicks, your % should be really low either way and I don't think you should worry about that(if that's what you're worrying about). Right now it displays total kicks / %, if anyone has any good ideas about how to display even more stats about it(or replace maybe?) I'll be happy to hear it!
Mmmmyeah I can see where you're coming from but like, if we were to display that in addition to the other ping/leave stats, it'd be a lot of stuff just centered on that. If you only have 7 pingkicks, your % should be really low either way and I don't think you should worry about that(if that's what you're worrying about). Right now it displays total kicks / %, if anyone has any good ideas about how to display even more stats about it(or replace maybe?) I'll be happy to hear it!
Varonth
02-06-2010, 04:23 AM
Mmmmyeah I can see where you're coming from but like, if we were to display that in addition to the other ping/leave stats, it'd be a lot of stuff just centered on that. If you only have 7 pingkicks, your % should be really low either way and I don't think you should worry about that(if that's what you're worrying about). Right now it displays total kicks / %, if anyone has any good ideas about how to display even more stats about it(or replace maybe?) I'll be happy to hear it!
What about:
Total Number of Ping kicks
In "#amount of matches"
Ratio "#amount of matches you got kicked" / "#amount of matches played in total" / 100
What about:
Total Number of Ping kicks
In "#amount of matches"
Ratio "#amount of matches you got kicked" / "#amount of matches played in total" / 100
Tosconi
02-06-2010, 04:56 AM
I mean - i was kicked only from 2 matches, but 9 times - which is 7% of my overall matches. If it gets growing with such a speed it is really scary somehow. Coz another 2 matches, another 10 kicks and it'll be 15%, although it would not represent the actual picture.
nesnl
02-06-2010, 05:11 AM
I think ideally it would show the number of times ping kicked as a number and then show the percent of total matches in a percent. I don't know if this is possible or not, but we will keep you posted.
Sarah Palin
02-06-2010, 05:52 AM
The interface features you added (worst opponent, best teammate, Match Details) are great.
btw re: match quality, you're spot on that variance affects it... a lot of people have noticed that when there's very high variance among the ten playing, one really good (or bad) player in ladderbalance can "force" a team stacked with players of the opposite skill level.... usually with hilarious results in game.
btw re: match quality, you're spot on that variance affects it... a lot of people have noticed that when there's very high variance among the ten playing, one really good (or bad) player in ladderbalance can "force" a team stacked with players of the opposite skill level.... usually with hilarious results in game.
-MH-CaptainVogez
02-06-2010, 07:24 AM
Gah guys hopefully I'll be on again soon.
I bet my ranking is destroyed...
I bet my ranking is destroyed...
Zero
02-11-2010, 04:38 AM
Vesuvius need to be banned from ladder being a D*ICK and noob thank you
nobodyhome
02-11-2010, 04:49 AM
that's.... not quite an adequate explanation.
Kuja900
02-11-2010, 04:50 AM
Vesuvius need to be banned from ladder being a D*ICK and noob thank you
You know some tact wouldn't hurt.
You know some tact wouldn't hurt.
Ajuk999
02-11-2010, 06:42 AM
Kuja I am surprised to see you in this thread. From what I have learned, you have kept yourself as far away as possible from the Altitude Ladder in a whole, I haven't seen you once on any Ladder server, why?
Smushface
02-11-2010, 06:58 AM
Kuja still has way too many fanboys.
The ladder community as a whole needs to discuss dodging. I can understand not wanting to play if certain players are on your team, but making an entire server go through the team picking process and then deciding not to play because you are unhappy with the results is stupid. I think dodging should become a kickable / bannable offense. Teams aren't always going to be fair, and yea, sometimes you're going to get a nubby reverse HC biplanes on you're team, but so be it.
The ladder community as a whole needs to discuss dodging. I can understand not wanting to play if certain players are on your team, but making an entire server go through the team picking process and then deciding not to play because you are unhappy with the results is stupid. I think dodging should become a kickable / bannable offense. Teams aren't always going to be fair, and yea, sometimes you're going to get a nubby reverse HC biplanes on you're team, but so be it.
wolf'j'max
02-11-2010, 07:25 AM
Vesuvius need to be banned from ladder being a D*ICK and noob thank you
No great explanation but i had to unmute him because he was in my team and he started swearing at me again.
No great explanation but i had to unmute him because he was in my team and he started swearing at me again.
[Y]
02-11-2010, 01:22 PM
sometimes you're going to get a nubby reverse HC biplanes on you're team, but so be it.
You're right, Beagle. Those subconscious "bagle is bad" feelings are pretty strong.
You're right, Beagle. Those subconscious "bagle is bad" feelings are pretty strong.
Kuja900
02-11-2010, 05:08 PM
Kuja I am surprised to see you in this thread. From what I have learned, you have kept yourself as far away as possible from the Altitude Ladder in a whole, I haven't seen you once on any Ladder server, why?
Eh was away for a few days when it launched, im getting into it now however its quite fun. I must say having 3 rev thrusting stubborn bips on my team is quite frustrating :(. Oh and as of last night all fLb and former fLb in top 3.
Eh was away for a few days when it launched, im getting into it now however its quite fun. I must say having 3 rev thrusting stubborn bips on my team is quite frustrating :(. Oh and as of last night all fLb and former fLb in top 3.
Kuja900
02-11-2010, 05:10 PM
Kuja still has way too many fanboys.
The ladder community as a whole needs to discuss dodging. I can understand not wanting to play if certain players are on your team, but making an entire server go through the team picking process and then deciding not to play because you are unhappy with the results is stupid. I think dodging should become a kickable / bannable offense. Teams aren't always going to be fair, and yea, sometimes you're going to get a nubby reverse HC biplanes on you're team, but so be it.
If the result of the game is obvious before it begins the teams should be rebalanced.
The ladder community as a whole needs to discuss dodging. I can understand not wanting to play if certain players are on your team, but making an entire server go through the team picking process and then deciding not to play because you are unhappy with the results is stupid. I think dodging should become a kickable / bannable offense. Teams aren't always going to be fair, and yea, sometimes you're going to get a nubby reverse HC biplanes on you're team, but so be it.
If the result of the game is obvious before it begins the teams should be rebalanced.
nobodyhome
02-11-2010, 06:53 PM
If the result of the game is obvious before it begins the teams should be rebalanced.
There is never a point at which one of the teams will for 100% probability win the game. If the odds of the game are stacked in favor of one side, then the rating system will take care of it by forcing the expected value of both teams to come out to be 0.
If however one side consists of underrated players and thus the game is balanced poorly, then the underrated players deserve to have an expected value of higher than 0, so that they could get closer to their true rating.
There is never a point at which one of the teams will for 100% probability win the game. If the odds of the game are stacked in favor of one side, then the rating system will take care of it by forcing the expected value of both teams to come out to be 0.
If however one side consists of underrated players and thus the game is balanced poorly, then the underrated players deserve to have an expected value of higher than 0, so that they could get closer to their true rating.
wolf'j'max
02-11-2010, 09:22 PM
Go watch my matchlist. You will br surprised to see with what kind of players i won from some kind of players. They sometimes don't trust me whenni pick them ( >.> tgleaf) but it's not about getting the best players. More about having good plane compositions.
Ajuk999
02-11-2010, 09:26 PM
Eh was away for a few days when it launched, im getting into it now however its quite fun. I must say having 3 rev thrusting stubborn bips on my team is quite frustrating :(. Oh and as of last night all fLb and former fLb in top 3.
Glad to hear that Kuj, well we will be seeing ya in the ladders! Oh and yes as I recall fLb members are at the top. Good Luck Kuja!
Glad to hear that Kuj, well we will be seeing ya in the ladders! Oh and yes as I recall fLb members are at the top. Good Luck Kuja!
Evan20000
02-11-2010, 10:24 PM
Glad to hear that Kuj, well we will be seeing ya in the ladders! Oh and yes as I recall fLb members are at the top. Good Luck Kuja!
Why are you talking to yourself?
On topic: The ladder drama is dying down a little, but we're still having pointless kicks. D:
Why are you talking to yourself?
On topic: The ladder drama is dying down a little, but we're still having pointless kicks. D:
Zero
02-11-2010, 11:52 PM
-_- im calling abuse, noobs keep kicking me from the server, Sarah palin and the $E noobs, i didnt even do anything
PS:wtf now i cant go in the server for 25 mins thats ****ing bull
PS:wtf now i cant go in the server for 25 mins thats ****ing bull
Sarah Palin
02-11-2010, 11:58 PM
I think your team deserves some real credit for waiting until the game was over before voting to kick you, heh.
I couldn't see what you were yelling at them in teamchat but I get the idea you really pissed them off.
I couldn't see what you were yelling at them in teamchat but I get the idea you really pissed them off.
Flyngbanana
02-13-2010, 03:50 PM
Is there a way where if starttournament is enabled that spectators can't vote? Or is that something not related to the ladder? I get fed up of teams being dominated that lose a player with 1 base hit to go and try to stop the tournament and the spectators just click yes even though they aren't involved.
eth
02-13-2010, 04:06 PM
Is there a way where if starttournament is enabled that spectators can't vote? Or is that something not related to the ladder? I get fed up of teams being dominated that lose a player with 1 base hit to go and try to stop the tournament and the spectators just click yes even though they aren't involved.
Theres no way to see who votes what yet, or turn off spectators ability to vote. What you can do though, is send us a screenshot and we'll ban whoever initiated the vote :P
Theres no way to see who votes what yet, or turn off spectators ability to vote. What you can do though, is send us a screenshot and we'll ban whoever initiated the vote :P
nobodyhome
02-15-2010, 12:14 AM
ladder will be down today for a few hours while we are doing some updates. apologies for the inconvenience, hopefully you will forgive us after you see what the update is.
[Y]
02-15-2010, 12:31 AM
ooh ooh is it an in-game "/vote ladderbalance" function?
or something even better?
SPILL!!!
or something even better?
SPILL!!!
Sarah Palin
02-15-2010, 03:05 AM
ladder will be down today for a few hours while we are doing some updates. apologies for the inconvenience, hopefully you will forgive us after you see what the update is.
Can't wait :)
Can't wait :)
Herodadotus
02-15-2010, 03:10 AM
With this ace thing, I'm interested to see how demo loopys and such will affect the ladder results.
Stormich
02-15-2010, 06:46 AM
The ladder servers are capped at lvl 50 or 60 not sure so I don't think we'll see anything like that soon.
nobodyhome
02-15-2010, 12:32 PM
servers back up. check the update.
classicallad
02-15-2010, 12:34 PM
some of the working of ladder should be implemented into PL servers for the league.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét