This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Retired Moderator
#553028
Caretaker's Guest wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:31 pm Well, life time ratings should be kept and let those who are too coward to enter the scene keep them.
To be completely fair here, I don't think this is a reasonable take on the recent objections to tournaments we've seen here. And I'd rather not have Rule 11 become involved either.

There have been two reasonable objections (bearing in mind that one doesn't have to necessarily agree with an objection to find it reasonable) raised that have nothing to do with alleged fear of losing rating points.

1. How secure is the online tournament environment from cheating?

2. People can be jerks online in a way that they wouldn't in real life.

To me, that suggests what's being argued is not "I'm afraid of losing my ratings points" but "If I do lose my points, I want it to be fair, and I don't want to be verbally abused in the process either."

From my limited perspective on the matter, Lackey seems secure from everything I've heard, but I would suggest OP consider enhancing rules regarding good sportsmanship (sportspersonship?) both during and after online tournaments, as well as posting info on opponents' decks while tournaments are still happening. Situations where someone says "I don't want to play in online tournaments because I might be matched up with So-and-so and they're a jerk" are categorically not good for OP.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#553032
jadziadax8 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:29 pm
KazonPADD wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:29 pm I’d suggest changing the drop-down to default to a 3-year rolling basis.
:twocents:
That’s an interesting idea!
Wouldn't quite be "rolling", since Elo depends on your score at the moment of the event. As I understand it, you can't just back out previous events, because changing your score at any moment in history changes the score of everyone you played since then - and everyone *they* play, etc and so forth.


Everyone would end up with four scores (and the system would have to recalc each of them for each game):

1. Your lifetime score. (You start at 1500 when you joined)
2. Your 2019-2021 score.
3. Your 2020-2022 score.
4. Your 2021-2023 score.

Now, there's ways to make this less confusing (say, we calc all the scores for future, but only show lifetime and 19-21 on the site, swapping to the next bucket in Jan '22), but I don't know how much back-end overhead that would add.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#553035
Boffo97 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:43 pm
Caretaker's Guest wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:31 pm Well, life time ratings should be kept and let those who are too coward to enter the scene keep them.
To be completely fair here, I don't think this is a reasonable take on the recent objections to tournaments we've seen here. And I'd rather not have Rule 11 become involved either.

There have been two reasonable objections (bearing in mind that one doesn't have to necessarily agree with an objection to find it reasonable) raised that have nothing to do with alleged fear of losing rating points.

1. How secure is the online tournament environment from cheating?

2. People can be jerks online in a way that they wouldn't in real life.

To me, that suggests what's being argued is not "I'm afraid of losing my ratings points" but "If I do lose my points, I want it to be fair, and I don't want to be verbally abused in the process either."

From my limited perspective on the matter, Lackey seems secure from everything I've heard, but I would suggest OP consider enhancing rules regarding good sportsmanship (sportspersonship?) both during and after online tournaments, as well as posting info on opponents' decks while tournaments are still happening. Situations where someone says "I don't want to play in online tournaments because I might be matched up with So-and-so and they're a jerk" are categorically not good for OP.
1. Pretty much this

2. To the issue of cowardice - those ratings were put at risk over and over again to build them up and speaking for myself - put at risk at all levels of the game. Cowardice isnt the issue - its risk vs reward against time investment. I am not scared to put my rating on the line but why would i WANT TO when to hold onto it takes more effort than its worth and i might end up "playing against a jerk" and then its not worth it - weighed against the feel bad of watching it bleed out. People can say they dont care as their ratings slide but i dont know how much i believe them. Whats really only important is that i know for me it would needle at my competitive nature to bleed them out just in the name of "fun". No thank you. Winning 5 games then losing 1 and going down in rating? Not fun
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#553045
Boffo97 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:43 pm
Caretaker's Guest wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:31 pm Well, life time ratings should be kept and let those who are too coward to enter the scene keep them.
To be completely fair here, I don't think this is a reasonable take on the recent objections to tournaments we've seen here. And I'd rather not have Rule 11 become involved either.

There have been two reasonable objections (bearing in mind that one doesn't have to necessarily agree with an objection to find it reasonable) raised that have nothing to do with alleged fear of losing rating points.

1. How secure is the online tournament environment from cheating?

2. People can be jerks online in a way that they wouldn't in real life.

To me, that suggests what's being argued is not "I'm afraid of losing my ratings points" but "If I do lose my points, I want it to be fair, and I don't want to be verbally abused in the process either."

From my limited perspective on the matter, Lackey seems secure from everything I've heard, but I would suggest OP consider enhancing rules regarding good sportsmanship (sportspersonship?) both during and after online tournaments, as well as posting info on opponents' decks while tournaments are still happening. Situations where someone says "I don't want to play in online tournaments because I might be matched up with So-and-so and they're a jerk" are categorically not good for OP.
Agreed. I wish online tournaments would be better about time zones and who you match up with. But that’s a wishful thought I feel.

I do think OP needs to do better about how online tournaments are conducted in terms of ‘competitiveness’.

1) Mostly agree. But I have played against people who have ‘saved’ the game due to making sure we can go back if we disconnect. The issue is one can just open it up in a 2nd lackey and look at the cards. I don’t like that feeling at all and there isn’t, as far as I know, an OP directive about it.

2) I don’t think online ratings should be counted for in person ratings. Different type of animal esp due to how lackey is. Make two different rating systems.
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#553054
DarkSabre wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 1:26 am I have played against people who have ‘saved’ the game due to making sure we can go back if we disconnect. The issue is one can just open it up in a 2nd lackey and look at the cards. I don’t like that feeling at all and there isn’t, as far as I know, an OP directive about it.
I do this all the time, indeed. (For the first reason stated; disconnected too often.)
A directive won't help with Lackey as-is, because then there's the autosaves that are made when the turn is progressed.
Well -- come to think of it, we could stop using the turn counter, thus preventing autosave as well... I hate that idea myself, but I also fully understand the need for either different IRL and online ratings, or for an online game system that isn't so cheat-prone as Lackey is.
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#553057
Lackey has its issues, yet mostly people do not want to play online for other reasons (like: buuuh someone uses unbanned cards i want to see banned etc.)

But also real life has issues: Some simply have noone in their region and cannot afort flying through the world. Others play real life but always in the same - unfortunatly often small - community. Which also would not give an appropriate reflection of their skills in good and bad.
User avatar
Chief Programmer
By eberlems
 - Chief Programmer
 -  
Explorer
2E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E  National Second Runner-Up 2023
#553062
Some don't like lackey, but I guess it's better than having a webcam over your side of the table and having to proxy all the interacting cards.
Also it's easy to spot how many cards are where, how many were drawn and where they went or whether a deck was stacked or shuffled.
Do we need other Ratings? Isn't this enough:
  • Lifetime ELO by edition and format
  • highest earned ELO
  • win streaks
  • ELO by year and edition, continent, country, region
  • league points
  • league lifetime points
  • Masters Points
  • dojo league
  • achievements
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#553077
I would advocate for just eliminating the rating system entirely. Retire it, keep the records so people can look at them for nostalgia and then just move forward with wins/losses, head to head and achievements.

ELO presumes a very active community where the points can flow around easily but we don't have that anymore. The ratings milk is stagnant, the cream no longer can rise to the top. Scrap it.
User avatar
 
By sexecutioner (Niall Matthew)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
1E World Runner-Up 2023
1E European Continental Semi-Finalist 2023
1E British National Second Runner-Up 2023
#553079
My ratings have fluctuated significantly over the years.

I tend to focus more on my head to head list, and my 'take out a world champion' list

High earners should get a badge if the current ratings system is scrapped

:)
Vulcan Lander and its ability

What constrains this strategy is the number of c[…]

Ignoring point losses & Timing

I would be interested in the answer to this as wel[…]

Greetings 'trek fans! As discussed in our Februar[…]

1EFQ: Game of two halves

First: Rescue Captives is OP, there should[…]