Official forums for BZFlag.org

I love you millennials...always looking for a participation trophy. Not only must you get elo points for wins but you see it as fitting to rub it in the losers face by gaining more advantage based on how many scores you get by capping? Really? Great sportsmanship and really mature I might add. I hope you "strong" players get your way....I really do...and then when no one comes to play on your servers anymore because you big strong awesome players rule the universe you can play by yourselves.

moto? can you elaborate?

Moto: just to he clear there won't be more points awarded for more captures atleast i don't think so. I don't think many if any strong player wants it like that.

But we should reward close matches even for the loser so.. something like if

Myself and runruns match vs blinks and miro who are ranked higher than us and if we lose by 1 capture we are awarded somehow by that.. if they beat us by 2 captures we are not.. to avoid teams from racking up the score you just cap it at a lower number to prevent that.. so it's not more the captures more the points... but a way to encourage weaker teams to offi better teams could be achieved this way

Bad company wins vs toma hawk 3-0 we lost -10
If bad company wins can toma hawk 2-1 we lose -5

Moto Unit wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 10:21 pm I love you millennials...always looking for a participation trophy. Not only must you get elo points for wins but you see it as fitting to rub it in the losers face by gaining more advantage based on how many scores you get by capping? Really? Great sportsmanship and really mature I might add. I hope you "strong" players get your way....I really do...and then when no one comes to play on your servers anymore because you big strong awesome players rule the universe you can play by yourselves.

Moto, this was a discussion about the idea. It doesn't mean it was going to be implemented, it depended upon player feedback.

Also, you have to view this from more than just one perspective. Not all matches are extremely uneven, to the point where the winning team is winning by 10-0. The idea behind it was that the losing team wouldn't lose extra points, but the winning team is rewarded for a certain number of winnings caps, up to a threshold, which I suggested to be +5 (btw, plenty of matches have been won by much more than 5 caps so I thought this was more than reasonable).

In any case, we have since discarded this idea because there is not enough support for it. So it will remain as present, where only win/loss matters and not the number of caps.

Moto Unit wrote: I love you millennials...always looking for a participation trophy. Not only must you get elo points for wins but you see it as fitting to rub it in the losers face by gaining more advantage based on how many scores you get by capping?

For the record, this would be the exact opposite of a participation trophy.

However, I agree that the idea might incentivize blowouts. But, keep in mind, if all we do is look at win vs. loss for the losing side, then that disincentivizes good players from evening up a lopsided FM.

I think your missing Moto's points, seems the discussion of an additional new format is putting a bandage on why players don't offi or slowly fall off participation.

Ever discussed why fm's are more popular than offis? They don't segregate, players try and match teams as even as possible, players swap if the sides become unbalanced as most have a vested interest in creating a level playing field. Goal, to make an fm as enjoyable & fun so players will come back & do it again & again.

I would hope at the end of the day each Team listed whether they be active or inactive has the option to join the new format and this suggested format is not compulsory.

It makes me cringe when ELO's are discussed and used to mark a players worth. It'll just shrink the player base even more.
Seriously if this is to be tried then create a new league for it, trial it for 3 months, players who are interested in the concept sign up.
Learn from it & see if there are any best bits to take out of it.
I would suggest as an approach players whom are available for a month sign up, random selection is made formed into teams and go offi, that's the base for the new league. Teams have to be created as equal as possible.

Perhaps one day the real problem of why teams don't offi might be resolved & how to fix it & we do away with bandaids.

Great initiative and great to see everything implemented so quickly and smoothly! Great job with LU first and then with this addition/change of rules second!

BZ feels active, competitive and (thus) fun. and I like to play it right now.

I recommend to not get too serious about "even teams" and trying to balance everything, but maybe I have old-fashioned views on that.

Regards, levi

Just to clarify regarding mixed officials:

• In a mixed official, once the match begins, players cannot change colors unless EVERYONE agrees to balance teams. Teams should be decided beforehand to avoid issues.
• To avoid misunderstandings & conflicts from those too 'hot to trot' for mixed officials, communication must be CLEAR that it's a mixed official. Players be sure to check the chat and countdown timer message. It will state whether it's fm or official. Stands to reason if it's a mixed official and you don't want that, go obs!

can we get clarification on rank matches?

Oct 1 brought the support for new match types and Elo ratings tied directly to players. With this, there is the introduction of new official match types:

Team vs Team (TvT)
Team vs Mixed (TvM)
Mixed vs Mixed (MvM)

When llrr and myself launched this idea moloy vs moloy was supposed to be allowed.

Moloy gains nothing win or lose the points end up being a +-0

I did a match like this so the winning team would earn personal elo which that's all would have been effected.

now:

moloy vs ccb(moloy) + kierra (FF) is allowed

this shouldn't be allowed due to the fact i could throw the match for my team to profit.

Both of these match formats above will report.

If these formats are not allowed could we update the plugin?

I personally don't think 1 admin should be clarifying the rules on their own and we should as either a community or LU council.

Look at the attachment in first post: If you look at the example for Team vs Team is SG vs BC

Scenario 1 (both colors are players from the same teams):
{SG ELO 1200}
llrr [1000] (SG) + ccb [1200] (SG)
vs
{BC ELO 1400}
miro [1400] (BC) + damns3xy [2000] (BC)

Two distinctly different teams.
Allejo says moloy vs moloy would give error msg. It was never designed for same team vs same team.

I personally don't think 1 admin should be clarifying the rules on their own and we should as either a community or LU council.

ONE admin did not clarify the rules....it was discussed in @ forum. I just post their update work on the LU site - as it states on my player profile

Alright, let me explain how and why things were implemented as they were.

The specification that was followed was the one posted here and was "frozen" when I started working on the feature (meaning any future updates here would be moot as I had already started following the spec). The ability for the same team to play against each other has been disallowed since prior to player Elos being implemented; it didn't make sense for that to happen. This behavior remains the same as it has been since LU's inception and since GU/Duc days. The specification never mentioned that the same team vs the same team would modify player Elos, therefore that wasn't implemented.

Moving on to the case of TvM where it's "moloy vs ccb(moloy) + kierra (FF)," this is covered by "Scenario 3" of the specification. It states that "only one color has players from different teams" and that is what this situation is defined as. The mixed team is made up of players from different teams. The specification never mentioned that the players from the mixed team couldn't be on the same team as the full team. This is why it is allowed from a technical aspect. However, it's been determined that this shouldn't be allowed in LU because as ccb said, one player "could throw the match for [their] team to profit."

So here we are. This topic has been discussed in the past by LU council and the rules page has been updated accordingly. There's still some confusion regarding this subject, so if players want to change the behavior of how these matches happen, let's hear some support/arguments.

@kierra my intention wasn’t to throw shade but the post was signed with “Kierra” and I know some other posts are signed as Lu council.. that is all. And last I knew you weren’t part of council..

@allejo

Moloy vs Moloy i could’ve sworn worked in the past and reported as +-0. I could be wrong though.. and players elo were adjusted.

It would be the same as:
Random vs random = personal elo only

For the record, I am honorary council. And yes, in hindsight, I should have posted as LU council.
As allejo stated, the topic was discussed in @ forum.