[Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent   [Hottest Topics] Hottest   [Login] Login
How to fix/reduce time manipulation in tournaments
Forum Index » New Feature Request
Bakes

Messages: 19,
Joined: Aug 02, 2016,
Offline

Bakes

Messages: 19,
Joined: Aug 02, 2016,
Offline
Time manipulation allows for wrong outcomes in marchups. Currently rules will reward a player who is able to play games they are winning slowly and ones they might be losing faster, such that when time expires in a tournament the game they are losing is at a higher round count than the one they are winning. Current rules will deem this player the winner even when they may barely be holding a lead in one game and nearing complete defeat in the other. The good thing is that there is a simple fix to make sure the rightful person/team advances.

Rules for deciding who advances 1v1 tournament in order:
1. Most points (win=3, draw=1, loss=0)
2. Most number wins completed before time expires.
3. Least number rounds in wins completed before time expires
4. Most bases captured in time expired losses
5. Highest total value units killed
6. Highest number rounds in time expired losses
7. Coin flip

Rules for deciding a game winner in time expired games remains the same.

Rules for deciding who advances team tournaments and tournaments with group play
1. Most points (win=3, draw=1, loss=0)
2. Most number wins completed before time expires
3. Least number rounds in wins completed before time expires
4. Highest total value units killed
5. Highest number rounds in time expired losses
6. Coin flip

Rules for deciding a game winner in time expired fans remains the same.

These new tournament advancement rules should eliminate most of the cases where a player/team advances simply from time manipulation and especially cases where a player/team advances despite not doing as well as their opponent(s). Also these rules should be fairly easy to implement from s programming perspective.

Nothing is a bigger a turn off to new players as getting a time manipulated loss in a tournament despite obviously having played better overall. The above rules do not completely remove incentive to try to time manipulate, but it does nearly eliminate the rewards of doing so.

To fully eliminate time manipulation, in addition to the above rules, programming should be added to 1v1 to not allow an individual to advance one game of a tournament further than 1 round of the mirror game. However, this is likely to be more difficult and take more time to program and implement.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Oct 30, 2016 02:04

[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1019,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1019,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline
Nothing is a bigger a turn off to new players as getting a time manipulated loss in a tournament despite obviously having played better overall.

---
I sincerely doubt this is an issue. For like, 98% of the new players. Getting their faces busted in by a 2300 player is a far more likely outcome.

In other news, I am honestly unclear on how your proposed system is different than the current system.... it really does seem the same to me...

Edit: so if I am reading this correctly, basically what you added of consequence for 1v1 is 4. Bases capped in time exp losses?

Edit 2: okay so if I win one and lose one, the person who captures more bases in their loss moves on... this seems likely to be a rare occurrence? I guess that covers a potential problem? I guess I am not sure if it is worth adding as It isn't completely clear or logical (not that the current system necessarily is... but it is simple - rounds, credits)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at Oct 30, 2016 02:51

[Avatar]
simsverd

Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline

[Avatar]
simsverd

Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
I can agree that current system isnt perfect, but i cant see how this idea is fundamentally different.
- it does not remove the possibility and inventive to play for time
- it have a different system for 1:1 and group play - wich it cant have - system have to be the same for simplistic reasons.

We are currently testing with the next championship to be able to prolong all rounds - not only the finals. If this goes well (and not use much more time for the tourney total) then we will deploy that rule for all tourneys.
This will probably remove most of the issue with playing for time.
http://www.uniwar.com/tournament.page?tournament=championshipnovember2016

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at Oct 30, 2016 09:27


Moderator of gamechat and forum. Tourney admin.

Send me a PM here or invite me to a game if you want to ask me something, suggest a map for tourney or just wanna play a game
[Email]
Bakes

Messages: 19,
Joined: Aug 02, 2016,
Offline

Bakes

Messages: 19,
Joined: Aug 02, 2016,
Offline
  simsverd wrote:I can agree that current system isnt perfect, but i cant see how this idea is fundamentally different.


Currently if you are getting smashed in one game but have a slight lead in the other and time expires, if you are able to get the one you are losing advanced 1 round ahead of the other game you advance despite obviously doing worse. These proposed rules would eliminate that possibility. This is not an infrequent occurrence, and some players purposely get games out of sync for this reason. In this scenario, tiebreaker 4 or 5 (updated rules below) will end up determining who advances, which is a more just outcome.

  simsverd wrote:
- it does not remove the possibility and incentive to play for time


It certainly reduces the incentive to play for time, which is why it is an improvement to the current system. (It would eliminate it with the more complex programming that doesn't let one game advance more than one full round ahead of the other.) Please provide a counter example of how someone would manipulate time in their advantage.

  simsverd wrote:
- it have a different system for 1:1 and group play - which it cant have - system have to be the same for simplistic reasons.


We can use the following rule set that will work in all cases (1:1 and group play), and is a minor improvement from above:

1. Most points (win=3, draw=1, loss=0)
2. Most number wins completed before time expires.
3. Least number rounds in wins completed before time expires
4. Most # bases in time expired games
5. Highest total value units killed
6. Highest number rounds in time expired losses
7. Coin flip

  simsverd wrote:
We are currently testing with the next championship to be able to prolong all rounds - not only the finals. If this goes well (and not use much more time for the tourney total) then we will deploy that rule for all tourneys.
This will probably remove most of the issue with playing for time.
http://www.uniwar.com/tournament.page?tournament=championshipnovember2016

That's fine but unnecessary, with the proposed rules the deserved outcome will happen almost always and likely to speed up play because of that, even in tournaments with shorter number of days.
Bakes

Messages: 19,
Joined: Aug 02, 2016,
Offline

Bakes

Messages: 19,
Joined: Aug 02, 2016,
Offline
  Duaneski wrote:
In other news, I am honestly unclear on how your proposed system is different than the current system.... it really does seem the same to me...

Main purpose is to eliminate purposely getting games out of sync to advance. (see scenario in post above) it is not all that rare scenario and why allow it to happen when we can easily eliminate it.

  Duaneski wrote:
Edit: so if I am reading this correctly, basically what you added of consequence for 1v1 is 4. Bases capped in time exp losses?

Not quite. The main change is that in the event both games expire by time, those games are decided by what round number it is, rather by #bases (see updated rules in response to simsverd) and then kills. So if games are out of sync it doesn't really matter.

  Duaneski wrote:
Edit 2: okay so if I win one and lose one, the person who captures more bases in their loss moves on... this seems likely to be a rare occurrence? I guess that covers a potential problem?

Well I changed it slightly to #bases in time expired games (in response to simsverd) which actually slightly improves to cover some rare possibilities and also works for team/group play. So yes in the event that in 1v1 both games time expire, it will come down to who had the most # bases at the end.

  Duaneski wrote:
I guess I am not sure if it is worth adding as It isn't completely clear or logical (not that the current system necessarily is... but it is simple - rounds, credits)

It is logical (I challenge you to show that it isn't), and in general works the same way as current for most cases but improves in the cases where the current system fails. For deciding winners of expired games bases are given more importance to credits, so there is precedent.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at Oct 30, 2016 18:12

[Avatar]
simsverd

Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline

[Avatar]
simsverd

Messages: 921,
Joined: Dec 02, 2010,
Location: Bergen, Norway
Offline
your ideas are pretty good. It seems like it would improve upon current rules.

The main issue with it is that it seems complex. Not only to make (i know xavi have spendt much time on the "equal rounds count" feature wich never was deployed), but it will also be hard for players to understand,

That said - i support the effort. Problem is that this is much work with small reward to xavi - using time on features wich will make new players stay longer and also be good for revenue makes more sense.

...so therefore im pragmatic... and what you call "unnecessary" is probably the best solution you will see in many many months

Moderator of gamechat and forum. Tourney admin.

Send me a PM here or invite me to a game if you want to ask me something, suggest a map for tourney or just wanna play a game
[Email]
[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1019,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline

[Avatar]
Duaneski

Messages: 1019,
Joined: Nov 27, 2015,
Offline
Bakes I'm sorry I don't mean it is illogical more like sims said that it is MORE complex than the current system, more difficult to understand. And that's w the idea that the current system is challenging to understand.
Kohtar

Messages: 40,
Joined: Oct 12, 2016,
Offline

Kohtar

Messages: 40,
Joined: Oct 12, 2016,
Offline
I think there is one thing missing in your proposal, which is to roll back all games to the same round. It is the only thing which would make things fair, and totally eliminate the incentive for time manipulation.
The rules would thus be:

1) Number of won games.
In case of a tie, if there are unfinished games, roll all games back to the turn of the least advanced unfinished game (This can make finished games unfinished) Then, in every case, use the following tiebreakers:
2) Number of finished games won.
3) Least number of turns for games won.
4) Total number of bases, on unfinished games.
5) Highest total value of units killed (I think it would be fairer to replace this by total unit value, with a discount for wounded units, + remaining credits + half the turn's income for the player who should play, but it requires some programming and might be harder to understand)
6) Coin flip
Forum Index » New Feature Request
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © - 2020-04-14 v124 - UniWar website