#Login Register
CTA games re: Rating system and DHT settings
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average


01-20-2015, 09:46 AM #11
Fordus Still n00b
*
Status: Offline Posts:170 Threads:27 Joined:Apr 2014
Again, it would be impractical to do that in basketball since when the opposing team scores, you're already on the losing team's side of the court. In that scenario it makes sense to give the losing team the default possession, since you're on their side of the court. They theoretically have to get the ball past their side of the court before they are in scoring position, which somewhat counterbalances the 'reward' of getting the possession.

Does everyone have access to the CTA database / would I be able to crunch numbers myself? I would like to see: incidence of games that a team started out winning, and ended up losing. Comparing pre-DHT to post-DHT. I would also like to see this filtered for games where the final score differential was a margin of 1 or 2. There are 2 games I've played in the past few days that I can remember off the top of my head that I can remember (one in hectic and one in beta) where my team went up by a cap, then the game got significantly harder (possibly due to DHT), we lost momentum and ended up losing 2-1. This has happened to me many times. Of course it's possible that DHT has nothing to do with this, but even if it does, I would be hard pressed to know it, let alone prove it.

In terms of this affecting leagues, the likely only time it would affect results would be in close games between high level teams, where the contest is close enough and the players are good enough to prolong the better team's victory long enough that the smallest of edges become amplified. So the frequency with which this would occur would indeed be miniscule, but the significance would not be negligible in my opinion because of its bias for manifesting in the most significant games.

01-20-2015, 10:30 AM #12
niveus AC Developer
*
Status: Offline Posts:358 Threads:64 Joined:Mar 2014
The database doesn't store which team capped first :p sorry bud

01-20-2015, 10:59 AM #13
Fordus Still n00b
*
Status: Offline Posts:170 Threads:27 Joined:Apr 2014
yeah, I mean even then it's not like that information would be hard data, as there are other factors that could be at play that have nothing to do with DHT, and I have no idea what kind of sample size you would need to make a reasonable determination.

you make another good point though about the detriment of DHT; it indeed slows down rating progression.

01-20-2015, 11:20 AM #14
Odoacer AC Operations Team
*
Status: Offline Posts:154 Threads:16 Joined:Apr 2014
I just posted that DHT is not the issue with regards to rate of ratings change. :-|

01-20-2015, 11:42 AM #15
Bone Still n00b
*
Status: Offline Posts:238 Threads:37 Joined:Apr 2014
DHT (in terms of):

CTA - Whatever. CTA is geared towards balancing the playing field as much as possible. The most popular maps in CTA do that. The ratings do that. DHT might as well do it too. It's an avenue for all levels of players to jump in and play with a chance to win. Like or don't like it, that's what it is. There's nothing wrong with that either.

Leagues - Leagues to me are meant to be more competitive. Let the best team win. The lesser skilled teams shouldn't be rewarded with DHT because they're lesser skilled. Do something about it. GET BETTER. I can see how and why people would disagree, because not everyone shares the same competitive nature and outlook as I do. As a competitor though, I see it as asinine. If team A is capable of beating team B 10-0, then oh well. Team B needs to get better. Vice versa, If I was a player on Team B and DHT was in affect and we only lost to Team A 4-0 now instead, I would feel disgusted. It's competition... why on earth am I getting a hand me out for being bad?


I've accepted and adapted to DHT since it's already in place and isn't necessarily the be all end all that's ruining games. Generally speaking, the better team still usually wins. Just much closer scored than in the past, which creates the delusion that games are more "competitive" than they in fact are. People just seemed more driven in the past to improve to actually BEAT the better teams. Which I understand... we all don't have the time it takes to improve drastically and the game isn't flourishing by any means anyways. There's just something disheartening though that instead of improving, we're creating ways to level the playing field for the people who aren't actually driven to win on their own.
This post was last modified: 01-20-2015, 11:43 AM by Bone.

01-20-2015, 12:07 PM #16
Astrok n00b
*
Status: Offline Posts:31 Threads:0 Joined:Apr 2014
(01-20-2015, 08:35 AM)Odoacer Wrote:  Arc socialism... hah!

As I mentioned in the lobby yesterday, it's not an unheard-of game mechanic. In many sports such as football and basketball, the team that scores is "penalized" by giving possession to the other team. Why would any team want to score with such a penalty?? Doesn't that just reward the team that got scored on?? They could use the mechanic they used to start the game (coin flip, jump ball, etc.) to keep it fair, but they don't. Socialist sports, all of them.

Btw, arc socialism is having ratings-balanced teams. The better you get the worse your teammates get. What's the point in getting better if you're still gonna lose half your games, amirite? Want to object to that too? Go ahead; I know you want to, Fordus. We can repeat entire threads from 4-5 years ago. Smile

I'll start taking this concern seriously when someone can prove to me that dht is preventing the better teams from winning their games. Until then it's just whining about winning.


It's not whining. No more than it is stubborn pride that's causing you to steadfastly hold to your position. It isn't that on either side, simply philosophical differences about the 'proper' nature of competitive spirit. But I might suggest your graph in itself presents the evidence that it keeps better teams from winning (and not that it precludes them from it, which was never anyone's argument). The very fact that the goal is, seemingly, to make games as close as possible so that both teams have an equal chance of winning (it isn't there yet, but it's CLOSER) means that more deserving teams will lose at a greater frequency than they were before. We can't provide proof without analyzing every single game individually, so that's not realistic. Is it preventing the better teams from winning all the time? of course not. That doesn't mean it isn't marginalizing their chances. And if you're going to do that, there should be justification. I can see it in CTA to an extent, but not any other more exclusive league setting.

And for the record I do dislike ratings-balanced teams. But I also recognize that most people wouldn't want completely randomized teams, so that part is what it is. We don't have the user base to split methodology in that aspect.

To your first point, the issue at hand isn't really being 'penalized' for scoring. It's the scaling/progressive penalty. In all sports (at least that I can think of) any penalty applied to scoring applies consistently and fairly for both teams/players across the course of the game. That isn't an issue. If there was an ARC push-style map where the flag started in the middle originally, but for each winning cap it started in an advantageous spot for the other team... I wouldn't have an issue with that either, and i doubt Fordus would. That's analagous to what you're suggesting. A better analogy for basketball would be if, as a team's lead increases, their shot clock decreases. That's much more analagous to what's happening with DHT. Or a football team having to play with fewer players as their lead increases, or a hockey team swapping their net out for a larger one. As far as I can tell nothing like this exists in sports within a game. There are similar "leveling" factors that occur in a macro sense. Be it the draft that rewards incompetence (although you're seeing more often leagues are starting to move away from that as well), or expansion drafts. But these have a lot to do with political/economic factors.

Again, no one (I hope) is suggesting that it's a NEGATIVE to score in an ARC match with DHT. The benefit of the score is still far superior to not scoring (which is also why better teams are still going to win more often).

You asked us to prove that it prevents better teams from winning (an impossible task and not the issue at hand anyway), I'd ask you to explain the benefit in a competitive environment. I think we've already acknowledged we see the utility in a broader sense of keeping lesser players engaged, particularly in ARC's current state. Doesn't mean we have to personally like it, but we can accept it. But in a truly competitive environment, the ideal situation is for a winner/loser to be determined AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE by the participants themselves, with as little left to chance or random factors as possible, on an even playing field. Progressively handicapping a better team isn't fair. It doesn't matter that "oh but they are still better so they should still win". I don't want games to be kept artificially close, whether I'm on the winning or losing side. If it's going to be a blowout then let it be a blowout. Why is that a bad thing?

In the end, it's going to be preferential thing. But I can tell you this, the point in time where the NFL or NBA or MLB or whatever other sports league manages to make games completely even and give all teams an equal chance of winning every game, will be the point in time I have no interest whatsoever in the sport. I don't understand the fascination of wanting 'equal chance' for all, and I don't get why that's a goal of some people. If I wanted to roll a 32 sided die to determine a league champion I would do that, and it'd be pretty fucking boring and wholly meaningless. And the more things we add to 'keep games close' to AC, the more it feels like we're going down that road. It's simply not as fun. Close matches are fun and intense in large part because they don't happen all the time.

Honestly this system just seems like it's in place to pander to shitty players or assuage weak-minded players that can't handle occasional blowouts. And if that's the case, fine, leave it in CTA to prevent blowouts (but like Fordus said before, it probably shouldn't kick in until at least a 2-3 cap difference). I don't think anyone will have a real strong opposition to it other than a general preference against it. And like I've said before, in the current state of AC it's probably a necessity to not have a bunch of blowouts in CTA games. Can't afford to alienate any players, really.

Just as a disclaimer, I do play other online games (mostly FPS). And I suck at them. And I don't want extra health or other handicaps because of it.

But whatever, AC is awesome so let's just play and have fun, yeah?! Smile
This post was last modified: 01-20-2015, 12:10 PM by Astrok.

01-20-2015, 02:55 PM #17
Odoacer AC Operations Team
*
Status: Offline Posts:154 Threads:16 Joined:Apr 2014
Bone Wrote:The lesser skilled teams shouldn't be rewarded with DHT

Again with the idea of it being a reward (...). The only way to get the "reward" is to be losing the game. That's just a word choice used for rhetoric.

Bone Wrote:There's just something disheartening though that instead of improving, we're creating ways to level the playing field for the people who aren't actually driven to win on their own.

Blowout games tend to discourage players to the point where they stop trying. Discouraged players don't improve if they're not playing anymore. You can lament that fact all you want or pretend that's not how it really is, but there is a reason every competitive online game has a matchmaking system to pair similarly-skilled opponents together. People do not like getting monkeystomped. They like playing against players of similar skill, in games that are challenging but not too-challenging. If we had millions of players, like LoL, bad players would simply face other bad players and no other measures would be necessary. But we don't. We have a small number of players with a wide disparity in skill and they all play against each other.

DHT is a compromise measure -- one that attempts to reduce monkeystomping while at the same time allowing the better team to emerge victorious in practically every game.

---

One thing I've picked up on in these posts: You're all exaggerating the affect one extra second has in league maps. First of all, remember that DHT is not employed for the first spawn of the round. Secondly, for 1-0 games the effect is similar to having your spawn tile placed a few tiles back. If that sounds like a big deal to you, compare it to the fact that your spawn is random in the first place, the distance between spawns is great, and completely skill-free, random spawning has a *much* greater impact on close games than an added second ever would. Yet everyone is OK with that. Is it possible that one critically-bad spawn can lose a very close game? Absolutely. Is it possible that DHT can cause the better team to lose the tying cap? I'd say the odds are considerably lower, and even then the game is simply tied, not lost. Again, look at the ACG standings and tell me they would be any different without DHT. If you're going to exaggerate the impact DHT has, at least come up with one example. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Astrok Wrote:No more than it is stubborn pride that's causing you to steadfastly hold to your position.

You've known me long enough that you should know I only argue this insistently on a topic when I've already thought it through to the end. It's not a matter of pride. It's a matter of having already considered the arguments you're making.

Astrok Wrote:The very fact that the goal is, seemingly, to make games as close as possible so that both teams have an equal chance of winning (it isn't there yet, but it's CLOSER)

False. The goal is not to give teams an equal chance of winning. The goal is to make it slightly more difficult to extend a lead. That is all it does. You're trying to equate "equal" with "closer". If I wanted "to make games as close as possible so that both teams have an equal chance of winning", I could certainly have used a harsher approach.

Astrok Wrote:To your first point, the issue at hand isn't really being 'penalized' for scoring. It's the scaling/progressive penalty.

Your objection is different than Fordus's, since he apparently isn't as concerned if DHT is used after a 2 cap differential. He is mainly concerned with the potential tying cap. I have more sympathy with his train of thought than yours here. Frankly, I don't even see the point of arguing about the effect after 2+ caps. Are you more upset that your 4-0 victory should've been 10-0, or are you upset that you lost a game you shouldn't have?

Picking apart the sports analogy is getting into the weeds. Every analogy breaks down at some point. The very fact that we're comparing sports to ARC is problematic. They have other factors that either seek to level the playing field (salary caps, drafts), or keep players interested in playing despite being on shitty teams (money). We have none of that. If you're going to keep picking at the analogy then we should probably discuss why we don't have those things too? Maybe not. In the end, the only thing that matters is the specific effect we're talking about regarding this specific game.

Astrok Wrote:But in a truly competitive environment, the ideal situation is for a winner/loser to be determined AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE by the participants themselves, with as little left to chance or random factors as possible, on an even playing field.

...which is why I think you guys are overreacting. In close games the effect is so slight that it's a distant second to random spawning in a list of factors that determine the final outcome.

Astrok Wrote:If it's going to be a blowout then let it be a blowout. Why is that a bad thing?
Refer to my above paragraph on monkeystomping games.

Astrok Wrote:But I can tell you this, the point in time where the NFL or NBA or MLB or whatever other sports league manages to make games completely even and give all teams an equal chance of winning every game [...]

This whole paragraph is so absurd that I'm not even going to quote the rest of it. For the last time, there is a huge difference in what DHT does and "making the games completely even". You're attacking a hyperbole. That being the case, none of those sentences merit a response.
This post was last modified: 01-20-2015, 04:40 PM by Odoacer.

01-20-2015, 03:41 PM #18
Fordus Still n00b
*
Status: Offline Posts:170 Threads:27 Joined:Apr 2014
It would be hard for me to give you examples of ACG games because like I've said, I do not know if and to what extent DHT affects a specific game. It would require detailed analysis of an individual game, and even then there's a degree of speculation that would be involved.

All I can say is that it is possible for DHT to affect the outcome of a close game, which I'm uncomfortable with (and yes, kicking it in after a 2 or 3 cap margin is a simple fix to this).

DC's first game against LN in Stank, we ended up losing something like 6-5 either in OT or just as time was expiring. The game was back and forth, and for all I/we know, LN was simply the better team on that day / in that map / came out ahead at the end due to factors that had nothing to do with DHT (e.g. the randomness of spawns, as you mentioned). I know there were many close situations that game where one team looked like they were going to get both flags and then it either became a swap, or the other team not only recovered their own flag but recovered both and capped. It is very possible for a number of the caps (and even mere swaps, when one team was ahead by a cap), DHT could have played a role in the result.

Everyone knows that I prefer large maps to small maps, but it seems like that's the minority sentiment in the AC community. Most of the popular CTA maps are small ones. Now, I know that not all of these have DHT settings, but I do think that in the maps where the overall length is small and both the randomness and the frequency of spawns is high, just one extra second from DHT can easily become significant. Examples would be stronghold, joy, stank, trenches, bfd, and probably any new map that will come out since this is the style of map that caters to the majority of current AC players.
This post was last modified: 01-20-2015, 03:46 PM by Fordus.

01-20-2015, 04:09 PM #19
Odoacer AC Operations Team
*
Status: Offline Posts:154 Threads:16 Joined:Apr 2014
Yeah, like I said, I'm not opposed to the < 2 cap margin thing. I just didn't want to implement it mid-season. I think it's a fine compromise.

01-21-2015, 09:40 AM #20
Predator Still n00b
*
Status: Offline Posts:110 Threads:15 Joined:Apr 2014
This is just my personal preference and may be a little off topic.

The reason why I like this game is because everything is equal in the game. I don't like playing games where you are at a disadvantage because your opponent has better weapons, armor, etc. When I win or lose a game I like for it to be because the skill of my team was better or worse than the other team. That's why I never really could get into games like Diablo where you level up and do more damage and get different gear.

In a real competitive game where you are playing in a tournament I wouldn't personally like to see either team get an advantage other than their natural ability to play the game. Simplicity is what has always made this game attractive to me.
This post was last modified: 01-21-2015, 09:44 AM by Predator.

[Image: zJYKvdO.png]






Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)