|
There has been an issue which has irked me for the last 12 years with the ranking system. Blizzard's algorithms are not understood yet, and appear to be quite good at discounting games it sees as flukes. In fact, SC2 seems to be much much better about determining rank than any other games have been in the past. SC2 appears to use a point-winning sliding scale based on rankings (good), but this is an issue which still exists and bugs me to this day, which could easily fixed by removing a simple design flaw.
What always confused me from day 1 of SC was that a disconnect counts as a win for the other player. There's a place in the stats for the number of times you have disconnected from a game, but not the number of times you've been disconnected from, as it automatically counts as a win.Disconnect can happen regardless of who is winning, so why should it count as a win? I've been dropped just moments before annihilating someones base (and vice versa). meaning I should have won, but it counts as a win for the opponent. I'm fine with those games not being a win, because "it ain't over til it's over, you sonuvabitch". If neither player destroys the other (because of a disconnect), neither player should win.
I propose that a disconnect game NEVER result in a win, but either as a Tie, or another stat showing you how many times your opponent disconnected from you. These tie games would/should affect your rankings as a loss, without affected the opponents as a win. This wouldn't stop the creation of any hacks, but would completely nullify most of the point of dischacking (high stats, to win while losing) because no games with a disconnect by either player would count towards the ranking.
Your connection only influences the performance of the system and not the player's performance in-game (how much you are winning or losing), and thus can't be used to determine a winner. Using a disc to not lose would still look bad just like in SC1 when you would see ratings like 112-3-97. In most tournaments, disconnects result in replaying the match over, except in rare cases where one person was already crushing the other. Battle.net doesn't have the luxury of having human referees on hand to make such a judgment call, so why should any call be made?
Instead of rewarding the non-disconnector, penalize the disconnector.
Disconnects should never grant a win to either player.
Edit: in-game performance and clarification.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
Isn't it obvious what the flaw in your argument is? In your proposed system, people who didn't want losses could just disconnect before losing games. This would result in these players advancing up in their division indefinitely because they wouldn't lose points for losses and they would get points for wins.
|
What is to stop the guy just purposefully disconnecting everytime he loses? If everyone did that then no one would win at all.
If you disconnect it is your own fault for having bad hardware, software or a bad ISP or having a comp that crashes alot etc.
The other player might not deserve to win if he is losing and you are winning, but he certainly doesn't deserve to lose if you are the one who disconnects. He gave up his free time to play against you and then you go and try and waste his time with your disconnect BS. Think about it that way.
|
Sounds like a horrible idea. I don't think you appreciate the spitefulness of the average player. So many people are sore losers they'd disc just to stop you from getting a win (see the people who float their shit etc). if they are gonna get a loss either way there are a lot of people who would go out of their way to make sure you dont get a win
|
United States47024 Posts
Maliciously abusing the current system requires a dischack.
Maliciously abusing this proposed idea takes 2 fingers.
|
While I realize that this is not the main point of your post, there is also no evidence that any kind of "in-game performance" beyond Wins/Losses is used in calculating matchmaking rank.
In fact David Sirlin, who, while he admits he does not know exactly how the system works, does appear to have some inside information, rejects that possibility in this article:
Sirlin on Starcraft 2 Ladder Ranking system
EDIT: Fixed Sirlin's first name, edited for clarity.
FURTHER EDIT: I see you changed your OP to reflect this. I am going to leave my post up just because people may be interested in the linked article.
|
I could easily unplug my ethernet and be counted as a "disconnect". Your logic is flawed, if you leave (aka disconnect) from a game... it has to be counted as a loss.
|
No no no, you misunderstand me. The idea is making disconnecting not affect the opponents rank positively. The in game performance I made clear I was not sure of, thank you for the clarification. Perhaps I worded it badly saying disconnecting should not affect your ranking, but rather, it should affect both players equally. As I said, a high disconnect amount should still look bad for your ranking.
Just because a disconnect shouldn't result in a win, doesn't mean it can't result in a loss. I am merely making the point that there is no way to determine a winner or loser in a disconnect game on battle net, therefore 1 person should not be favored over the other when it does happen.
I agree that disconnecting to avoid losses is bad. But a disconnect could count as a loss for you, and NOT a win for the other player. If both players disc, both could lose points.
|
Oh HELL NO. Ask *anyone* who played CnC3 at any point ever why this this totally detrimental to a ladder.
|
On August 03 2010 00:17 Fyrewolf wrote:
No no no, you misunderstand me. The idea is making disconnecting not affect the opponents rank positively. The in game performance I made clear I was not sure of, thank you for the clarification. Perhaps I worded it badly saying disconnecting should not affect your ranking, but rather, it should affect both players equally. As I said, a high disconnect amount should still look bad for your ranking.
Just because a disconnect shouldn't result in a win, doesn't mean it can't result in a loss. I am merely making the point that there is no way to determine a winner or loser in a disconnect game on battle net, therefore 1 person should not be favored over the other when it does happen.
I agree that disconnecting to avoid losses is bad. But a disconnect could count as a loss for you, and NOT a win for the other player. If both players disc, both could lose points.
Current System:
If I'm losing a game, and let it run its course, then I get a loss on my record and the opponent gets a win.
Your System:
If I'm losing a game, and I manually disconnect, I still get a loss on my record, but my opponent gets nothing.
This is what I got out of what you said here, am I wrong?
I'd only be for making a disconnect count as nothing if it occurs within the first 2-3 minutes of a game.
As an aside, what they could introduce is a system that counts your disconnects, and if they are disproportionally high compared to your games played they could punish you by preventing you from versing players that have either no, or very few disconnects.
|
In the Sirlin article, he made the point that "nonsense" stats shouldn't affect your ranking, in both versions of the systems he describes. The one system eliminates them, the other uses the actual stats, but displays nonsense ones to give a feeling of accomplishment and progress, while the actual rank is less prominently displayed.
My point is that disconnect games are one of those nonsenses stats like headshots that inflate your stats inaccurately, at could be better dealt with by eliminating their de facto effect on ranking. More and more I'm thinking of the idea of making a disconnect count as a loss for the disconnector, and as nothing for the opponent, unless he disconnected too.
|
On August 03 2010 00:17 Fyrewolf wrote:
No no no, you misunderstand me. The idea is making disconnecting not affect the opponents rank positively. The in game performance I made clear I was not sure of, thank you for the clarification. Perhaps I worded it badly saying disconnecting should not affect your ranking, but rather, it should affect both players equally. As I said, a high disconnect amount should still look bad for your ranking.
Just because a disconnect shouldn't result in a win, doesn't mean it can't result in a loss. I am merely making the point that there is no way to determine a winner or loser in a disconnect game on battle net, therefore 1 person should not be favored over the other when it does happen.
I agree that disconnecting to avoid losses is bad. But a disconnect could count as a loss for you, and NOT a win for the other player. If both players disc, both could lose points.
I still feel this is a bad idea. The way it works now is pretty fair. Maybe if the DC happens in the first 2 minutes i don't have so much of a problem. But otherwise if you DC you lose and your opponent wins, simple as that.
|
The idea of a system to count disconnects is also a great idea. I loved that it would show your disconnects directly in your score in SC1. Showing the number helped paint a more accurate picture, unlike other games where it would not show the disconnects. A high number of disconnects should be investigated for many reasons (not just ranking but also battle.net issues).
And yes, your opponent should get nothing. If you don't finish the game, the game is not finished. You don't win by destroying all but 3 buildings. You win by destroying the opponent.
It will always penalize you as a loss. The fact that you are ragequiting and denying the opponent a win, is bm, immoral, and does suck, and Battle net does not have a human referee to review your game. Disconnecting would be like being disqualified, and the opponent getting a by.
|
On August 03 2010 00:20 Jarmam wrote:
Oh HELL NO. Ask *anyone* who played CnC3 at any point ever why this this totally detrimental to a ladder.
haha lol i remember that. my record was something like 54-0 in c&c3 lol. router unplug ftw
|
On August 03 2010 00:01 HCastorp wrote:To add to what others have said, there is also no evidence that any kind of "in-game performance" is used in calculating matchmaking rank. In fact Gary Sirlin, who, while he admits he does not know exactly how the system works, does appear to have some inside information, rejects that posibility in this article: Sirlin on Starcraft 2 Ladder Ranking system
His name is David Sirlin.
Nothing more to say on topic, you are right, disconnects shouldn't count as losses BUT it's too easy to abuse if a disconnect is counted as a draw or whatever...
Edit: Only now read your second post, i still think if someone disconnects it should count as a win for the remaining player. If i was winning a game and my enemy disconnects i would rage really hard if i don't get my points. Also disconnects are 99% of the time the fault of the one disconnecting, so they deserve the loss...
|
Also, I can disconnect 20 minutes into the game, but that won't change who is winning or losing. The first 2-3 minutes are obviously less defined, but doesn't mean it should be exclusive.
In chess, if you lose all your pieces but a horse and a king, you still can't win even if your opponent only has a king. But that doesn't mean the opponent automatically wins. In SC, it is very hard to determine a winner in a disconnect game. An uphill battle is not the same as a loss. In a tournament you replay the game, unless a judgment call is made by a referee. Battle net automatically makes a judgment call and inflates someones stats for a win they didn't achieve.
Instead of rewarding the non-disconnector, penalize the disconnector.
|
You underestimate the bitterness of many players on bnet. If this was implemented half your wins wouldn't count because your opponent would D/C just to deny you. The anger and frustration caused by people seeing their hard fought wins turn into draws because their opponent was a spiteful baby would see people retaliate with the same act, ending up with a frustrating and annoying experience for everyone and a ladder which would be a fluke of who lucked into having nicer personality opponents.
|
On August 03 2010 01:18 Cade)Flayer wrote:
You underestimate the bitterness of many players on bnet. If this was implemented half your wins wouldn't count because your opponent would D/C just to deny you. The anger and frustration caused by people seeing their hard fought wins turn into draws because their opponent was a spiteful baby would see people retaliate with the same act, ending up with a frustrating and annoying experience for everyone and a ladder which would be a fluke of who lucked into having nicer personality opponents.
While I do agree many players might try something like this, it will still always penalize them for it. I think people overestimate the impact many things in this game. Saying that everyone will penalize themselves by disconnecting to deny you the win, is like saying every single random player will cheese solely because he is random, when in fact, the majority of them don't cheese. It's the vocal minority that overpower the rest in that case.
I'm interested in discussing any other solutions y'all suggest as well. I just don't think we should reward the opponent for a disconnect, we should penalize the disconnector. How to best do so is up in the air, but I really would like to try and find a solution.
|
On August 03 2010 02:40 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 01:18 Cade)Flayer wrote:
You underestimate the bitterness of many players on bnet. If this was implemented half your wins wouldn't count because your opponent would D/C just to deny you. The anger and frustration caused by people seeing their hard fought wins turn into draws because their opponent was a spiteful baby would see people retaliate with the same act, ending up with a frustrating and annoying experience for everyone and a ladder which would be a fluke of who lucked into having nicer personality opponents. While I do agree many players might try something like this, it will still always penalize them for it. I think people overestimate the impact many things in this game. Saying that everyone will penalize themselves by disconnecting to deny you the win, is like saying every single random player will cheese solely because he is random, when in fact, the majority of them don't cheese. It's the vocal minority that overpower the rest in that case. I'm interested in discussing any other solutions y'all suggest as well. I just don't think we should reward the opponent for a disconnect, we should penalize the disconnector. How to best do so is up in the air, but I really would like to try and find a solution.
Then no one will advance. Half the players you face will disconnect if they're losing, so now it takes twice the time to advance if you're winning. Imagine you're amazing at the game, and your opponent gets mad and disconnects. Your next opponent is the same. And the next. And the next.
They don't care if they're penalized, they can just say they have a bad connection.
|
Battle.net ladder would have serious serious issues if players could deny their opponent a win by disconnecting. As someone said earlier, you're significantly underestimating the bitterness of many players who wouldn't hesitate to disconnect even if they still get a loss penalty.
Won with mass marauders? "Noob spam T is overpowered" /disc
Won with cheese? "Gay faggot you dont deserve a win" /disc
Won in the first 10 minutes "WTF stupid rusher" /disc
This would be terrible.
|
This is a bad idea. Even if the disconnecting player still gets a loss, the opponent wont get a win. Don't you see the flaw in this? In fact, it is inherently flawed. The low leagues (and even higher ones) will be plagued with those who disconnect before every loss, causing people who play legit to not have as many points compared to others (because they aren't gaining points when they win vs one of those disconnectors).
I honestly don't understand at all how this could ever be a good idea. I don't even understand how anyone could think this is a good idea.
|
No one says the current system is perfect, its just that it is less bad than every other option currently available.
One idea for a better system (not currently possible):
Disconnected games are saved. When the disced player signs back on, an option appears to continue the game. The player who did not disc also has this option. If both players choose to continue, the game continues. If neither do, the game is not counted. If one does and the other does not, the player who offered to continue the game gets the win, after some set period of time, say 24 or 48 hours. It would probably be a lot of work to monitor this system,and tweak it so that it couldn't be abused. Maybe it would be so much work, or so abusable, that it would be unworkable, but I am optimistic that something like this could eventually be implemented.
|
On August 03 2010 03:20 Chriamon wrote:
This is a bad idea. Even if the disconnecting player still gets a loss, the opponent wont get a win. Don't you see the flaw in this? In fact, it is inherently flawed. The low leagues (and even higher ones) will be plagued with those who disconnect before every loss, causing people who play legit to not have as many points compared to others (because they aren't gaining points when they win vs one of those disconnectors).
I honestly don't understand at all how this could ever be a good idea. I don't even understand how anyone could think this is a good idea.
Basically my thoughts. OP, have you never noticed the immaturity rampant in online games? People WILL disconnect before they lose with this system.
|
On August 03 2010 03:28 HCastorp wrote:
No one says the current system is perfect, its just that it is less bad than every other option currently available.
One idea for a better system (not currently possible):
Disconnected games are saved. When the disced player signs back on, an option appears to continue the game. The player who did not disc also has this option. If both players choose to continue, the game continues. If neither do, the game is not counted. If one does and the other does not, the player who offered to continue the game gets the win, after some set period of time, say 24 or 48 hours. It would probably be a lot of work to monitor this system,and tweak it so that it couldn't be abused. Maybe it would be so much work, or so abusable, that it would be unworkable, but I am optimistic that something like this could eventually be implemented.
I enjoy this idea very much, because it gives a condition for the win (opponent refuses to continue) rather than it being automatic. I believe this is possible in battle.net 2.0, though the question of how to implement it is valid.
My ideas in the OP may not be perfect, but this thread is to stimulate discussion. I feel it is an inherent flaw to reward the opponent rather than punish the disconnector. The question of how to do so is the topic for discussion, not whether the ideas in the OP are the right ones. They are merely one option which still needs refining.
|
Well, I think the reason there is not likely to be much enthusiasm for discussion is that just about everyone agrees that the current system is the most fair and least abusable one possible at the moment.
The injustice present when your opponent gets a win when you disc is just way, way, smaller than the injustice that will be present when you can deny an opponent a win by unplugging your router.
|
Terrible idea.
Generally speaking you want to use the least abusable system and not necessarily the most fair system. This isn't some sort of utopian society where we're trying to find the most clever, best system to do this - we just need something that players can't break in half.
In this case it might not be fair to give the opponent the win if you disconnect, however currently there's absolutely no incentive to disconnect. By calling it a tie or not giving the opponent any points, you'll open the door for malicious people to disconnect out of spite.
Red Alert 3 used a disconnect = tie idea and people would literally BM for 5 minutes floating their main building around the ocean and then the moment before it died, they would plug pull. If even one spiteful loser plug pulled on me and I didn't get the win I deserved, I would want to punch a wall. And I guarantee this problem would be more widespread than you think.
|
I like his idea.
I could technically go undefeated for my entire career.
|
On August 03 2010 04:01 HCastorp wrote:
Well, I think the reason there is not likely to be much enthusiasm for discussion is that just about everyone agrees that the current system is the most fair one possible at the moment.
The injustice present when your opponent gets a win when you disc is just way, way, smaller than the injustice that will be present when you can deny an opponent a win by unplugging your router.
Perhaps it is really the lesser of two evils, however when presented with such a choice we can at least make an effort to try and choose neither.
The quote in the earlier post reminds of a famous quote by Winston Churchill "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried" While I'm a believer in don't break what's already fixed, that doesn't mean we can't strive to improve further. The only way anything in the world changes is when we strive to improve, even when it already works.
|
On August 03 2010 03:16 Tsagacity wrote:
Battle.net ladder would have serious serious issues if players could deny their opponent a win by disconnecting. As someone said earlier, you're significantly underestimating the bitterness of many players who wouldn't hesitate to disconnect even if they still get a loss penalty.
Won with mass marauders? "Noob spam T is overpowered" /disc
Won with cheese? "Gay faggot you dont deserve a win" /disc
Won in the first 10 minutes "WTF stupid rusher" /disc
This would be terrible.
I was thinking the same thing.
|
If you played SC1 and (1) realized how common it was for people to disconnect to cheat their opponents out of a win & (2) how annoying it was to be forced to wait for 1 minute, then, you'll really how good we have it with this system. Disconnects should be penalized, period.
I don't care about how accurately one's record reflects someone's skill level, I care about playing this game and having fun. Your proposal promoting disconnects from people who take internet spaceships way too seriously.
|
Disconnect = defeat worked just fine in WC3, so I see no reason at all to change it. This, combined with the one character per account regulation, will gradually lead to people caring less about stats and more about having fun.
|
On August 03 2010 03:16 Tsagacity wrote:
Battle.net ladder would have serious serious issues if players could deny their opponent a win by disconnecting. As someone said earlier, you're significantly underestimating the bitterness of many players who wouldn't hesitate to disconnect even if they still get a loss penalty.
Won with mass marauders? "Noob spam T is overpowered" /disc
Won with cheese? "Gay faggot you dont deserve a win" /disc
Won in the first 10 minutes "WTF stupid rusher" /disc
This would be terrible.
Edit for truth.
Sorry this idea just wont work
However, one possible idea is to increase the penilty for disconnecting to maybe count as 2 losses, or 3? Then of course, this would be unfair to people who disconnects oftenly because of bad internet rather than abusing the system.
|
On August 03 2010 03:20 Chriamon wrote:
This is a bad idea. Even if the disconnecting player still gets a loss, the opponent wont get a win. Don't you see the flaw in this? In fact, it is inherently flawed. The low leagues (and even higher ones) will be plagued with those who disconnect before every loss, causing people who play legit to not have as many points compared to others (because they aren't gaining points when they win vs one of those disconnectors).
I honestly don't understand at all how this could ever be a good idea. I don't even understand how anyone could think this is a good idea.
Exactly...every game that did this failed...
|
I believe the original SC ladder did not count D/C as win or loss, and it was abused terribly.
But basically any system where the loser can influence the winner in a negative fashion (denying points) is inherently flawed.
|
like everyone said... abuses are endless (:
|
Discs are part of life, deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
