Is leaving at Turn-1 in ladder competition unsportsmanship? — S9 ladder discussion

[lyingdragon]

Is leaving at Turn-1 in ladder competition unsportsmanship? — S9 ladder discussion

As the coming with new score system in ladder, understandably that one needs not only to win but to win as much game as possible.

However, as Wulven is dong and has done on previous seasons, an environment with sportsmanship is required to make the competition in ladder more fair.

It might be better if we discuss what is sportsmanship before not-very-nice things happening here and there.

Question #1

Recently I found multiple times, that some players in ladder competition range, deliberately leave the game before T5, sometimes even in T1. Most time just in slightly un-favourite match-up like Eladwen vs Amber.

Is it unsportsmanship?

It is not fair to leave the game in early time for a few reasons:
— The opponents can not get the score which they deserved if you play and lose.
— The opponents lost the chance to enjoy a game and waste the waiting time.
-- It gains advantage (save time for more games) vs people who are not doing this.

Also it is not good for the SE community
— If every does like this, what will be the playing experience?

Please share your thoughts on this one.

BTW, there is a question #2 for discussing:
If evidence is found that some account is shared by multiple persons for competing in ladder, will this account be DQed in ladder at the end of season?

Wulven staff and DT welcome to share your thoughts!

[Index]

i always get the you already in a game bug. not intend to quit

[Raphael Majere]

BTW, there is a question #2 for discussing:
If evidence is found that some account is shared by multiple persons for competing in ladder, will this account be DQed in ladder at the end of season?

Wulven staff and DT welcome to share your thoughts!

There should be some form of monitoring. My brother and I share our accounts, but I am not playing for the ladder. (Neither is my casual games only brother) but I am pretty sure it's not illegal to share accounts due to the 'only 1 sign in at any one moment' feature.

I agree with LD but I think it's very hard to monitor. Say I am a globe trotter and I travel to 3 countries a week, playing on dozens of networks. My record would look like many people played on it as an attempt to play and win as many games as possible.

[Palestitch]

I fear I agree with LD here on topic number #1. Since the system has changed from more or less your score can only go up and not down you can arctificially have a better score:minute ratio by ignoring fair play.

[Mip]

Leaving turn 1 is just another reason why this system is a joke of a system.
It's why losing should lose you points...

A better system thought up in one minute is:
for a win you get: (Rating/100) squared
for a lost you lose: rating/100

so for 300 rating player:
win: 9 points
lose: -3 points

so for 250 rating player:
win: +4,25 points
lose: -2,5 points

so for 200 rating player:
win: 4 points
lose: -2 points

so for 100 rating player:
win: 1 points
lose: -1 points

It would reward being high rating and playing a lot. It would also punish leaving early.

[Palestitch]

But this, unless I am mistaken would not really solve the problem of people playing once every 5 days to not decay, right?

Since lets say the chances of you winning at 300 rating are 50% (which seems more or less acurate unless you have a supre broken deck) means.... Wait a minute.... I am actually arguing against my own point here.... Since on pure statiscal value (assuming 50% is correct) you gain a average of 6 points every 2 games.... It still does not provide huge incentive to continue playing once you are at 300, but it seems a lot better than what we have currently...

[Mip]

They are going only on score now for rewards, so you need to use that high rating to earn in the big points by playing a lot. Decay doesn't matter in this case, since they made rating rather meaningless already by not rewarding it much.
This rewards it more than the current system.

Technically they should win more than 50% since they aren't in the middle of the normal distribution regarding rating. The middle of the normal distribution should win 50% of the time.
At high rating you also lose more rating for losses then you gain for winning, hence they need 50%+ win percentage to maintain rating.

[Palestitch]

I know decay does not matter this season, but I assume one of the reasons for changing the system was that people only played once every 5 days to prevent their account from decaying and otherwise didnt play at all, which is why Wulven wanted/wants to discourage. I dont understand the part of them not being in the middle hence winning over 50%. I do understand the second part though since with a win you on average gain less than with a loss. Would you care to elobarate why they need to be winning over 50% because they arent in the middle? (Unless the only reason is the rating reason then I got it )

[Mip]

If rating determines skill, I can explain. They have a bigger chance to be playing someone below their rating, than above their rating, since there are more people in the area 250 to 300 then in the area 300 to 350.
Assuming the higher rated player wins more often than the lower rated player, they should on average get more players that are lower rating, hence they win more.

I don't know if you've had much math regarding statistics or distributions? But the basic idea is if any 300 rating player plays, his opponent is more likely to be lower rated since there are more of those. Provided ofcourse the opponent is randomly selected.

[Palestitch]

Thank you! I understand now what you mean, assuming I have had a lot of math what difference would that make?