Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Chevy43
Noob
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:38 pm

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by Chevy43 » Sun Nov 07, 2010 5:12 pm

Any chance you might address Silvercreeks' possibilities of changing or adding new policies for cheaters ? Give this serious consideration while you are PONDERING the leaderboard additions. Of course before commenting to any of my posts or any others, you might want to check with Galt. :wink:

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by Galt » Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:03 pm

Hi Jonas, that certainly isn't what I meant, and I am sorry if that is how it came across.

Good players absolutely will play rated games, but do it for the competition. This addresses Chevy's post as well.

If you do away with ratings, many to most of the truly good players would leave, and here is why. They have only so much time to play, and don't want to have to guess what kind of game they are going to join. I play many lower rated games, but I am a little unusual and do it on purpose... becaue of both my connection to the community and the fact that it is very hard to get higher games. I would, however, prefer to play a very competitve game every time that I sit down. I'd much rather lose a good game than win a lopsided game.

Right now, becaue of the combination of cut with team, we are often just guessing anyway. Even what is worse is what I experienced last night.

Sat in what I think was a 18 game. The first op, with good reason, did not want to pard a cut player. A cut player sat in the other opp seat, and the first opp didn't say anything but just left. Finally the 2nd opp left and the first opp came back. My pard promised to kick cut players, and he had to do so I think three times.

It gets harder and harder to get good games because, unless you are parding someone whom you know, players don't want to sit and take the chance of a pard with a meaningless rating that reflects play in some variant of the game which requires a much more limited skill set thatn the game at the current table.

In order to be high on any kind of "leaderboard", that pretty much has to be the player's primary reason for being and the only reason for that player to be playing and choosing the pard's and games that he or she does. That is a pard and an opp whom I want to be avoiding at all costs. The focus is not on competition and fun, it is soley on winning, and generally makes for unpleasant games.
Image

User avatar
dustin7609
Active Poster
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:22 pm

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by dustin7609 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:38 am

Jonas wrote:
Galt wrote: I think that very few truly good players are interested in leader boards.
Good players know that they are good and don't need some list to make them feel better about themselves.
So your take is that Good players aren't apt to play rating games since attaining a higher rating doesn't appeal to them?

Is there any stat that would appeal to more advanced players in your estimation? We can have leaderboards for things other than ratings. Say total games played, win/loss ratios.

What is it that good players pride themselves on, and can is be measured?
I think an accurate rating system is a great idea. And top players in any sport/game do want some sort of accurate measurement of skill. The main problem is that I haven't come across a good one yet :). It's a difficult thing to put together, I admit. Just out of curiosity, what is the formula used for hardwood? I'm guessing it's probably similar to the ELO system in Chess, correct?

While win/loss is a good indicator, it can easily be inflated by playing weaker opponents. I remember once getting my record to 52-0 playing really weak opponents just to see how far I could go :). So when I look for a "good player", I'd probably look at a combination of 2 things; 1) Their win/loss ratio, and 2) Their rating. In general, if you have a high rating and a 70+% win/loss ratio, you're probably very good. Maybe a rating system could take both into account somehow?

A good rating system should give you a proportional amount of rating points based on your opponent's "average" rating. Similar to ELO in chess I suppose.

User avatar
Jonas
Illuminated One
Illuminated One
Posts: 5002
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by Jonas » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:19 pm

dustin7609 wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the formula used for hardwood? I'm guessing it's probably similar to the ELO system in Chess, correct?
Yep is similar. Its not well suited for luck games, but like you said, its about as good as we could find.[/quote]
dustin7609 wrote: So when I look for a "good player", I'd probably look at a combination of 2 things; 1) Their win/loss ratio, and 2) Their rating. In general, if you have a high rating and a 70+% win/loss ratio, you're probably very good. Maybe a rating system could take both into account somehow?
The rating system more or less kinda does that internally. Here's the FAQ on how it works currently (makes my eyes glaze)
http://www.silvercrk.com/ratings/

Code: Select all

Everyone starts out with a provisional rating of 1500. You get an established rating after completing 20 games. We use 2 different calculations based on who is provisional and who is established.

        When a player is established and the opponent is
        also established:
        r1new = r1 + 32*(w-(1/(1+10^((r2-r1)/400))))
        If player is established and the opponent is provisional
        Points=16+(16*(n2/20))
        r1new = r1 + Points * (w-(1.0/(1.0+pow(10.0, (r2-r1)/400.0))))

where:
r1new = player's rating after the match
r1 = player's rating prior to the match
r2 = opponent's rating prior to the match
w = player's outcome (0 for loss, 0.5 for draw, 1 for win)
n1 = number of games played by player prior to the match
n2 = number of games played by opponent prior to the match
That said, we while a leader board CAN be about ratings, we can certainly have other leader boards of other stats. Total games finished, Win/loss ratios etc

One idea I've been interested in is a new stat relating to one experience, where we could award Experience points for various things, like fishing a game, taking over a seat where someone quit, points for showing up each day and participating. You know, things not about kicking the snot out of people, but being good citizens. Heck maybe you get 5XP for every thumbs up at the end of a game.


Another thing to keep in mind about leaderboards is that we're going to be working on context. The bottom line is 99.9% of the people are not going to be on the top 25 for an all time leaderboard, cheating or not. Just simple math. So we're going to bring some concepts like time frames, say "this week" or "Last 30 days". Only people that played during that time would show up.

Also we're looking forward to getting a friends list online, where you can add folks you had great playing experiences with so you can play them again some other night with ease (invite games etc). We can also use the friends list to filter a leaderboard. So for instance you can Galt and 50 players you enjoy playing with would be the only people you can see on this mode of the leaderboard.

I think that filtering will be nice for folks that might have a 1640 rating, but that might be #1 amongst their friends. Its competition, but not that mouth foaming, cheat prone type that you might see with folks on the top 25 of all time.

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by Galt » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:51 pm

Jonas, all that I can say is please do not over-complicate whatever you do.

Even the recent play requirement on the current top 25 list makes it pretty much irrelevant.

Recency of play has nothing to do with ability.

The KISS principle would go a long way here. Rewarding players on some arbitrary list based upon amount played or subbing or how many this or thats they might get will be cute but just be clutter... just like the current "Moon" setting on the games which takes up space but means nothing and has nothing to do with Spades.

Please just give us a mechanism so that we can relatively confidently sit at a table and have some idea what kind of players will be filling the seats created to play that particular game.
Image

User avatar
Jonas
Illuminated One
Illuminated One
Posts: 5002
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by Jonas » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:59 pm

Galt wrote: The KISS principle would go a long way here. Rewarding players on some arbitrary list based upon amount played or subbing or how many this or thats they might get will be cute but just be clutter... just like the current "Moon" setting on the games which takes up space but means nothing and has nothing to do with Spades.
Oh that wouldn't be a stat we'd likely use for game setting I don't think, we need to Keep It Simple.

What we're going to do is there will be a rating (based on the formula above) leaderboard for each variation that warrants it. So When you set a game of a particular variant, then you can also set it a rating requirement based on that variants rating. So its the same as it is now in that regard, it would just be context sensitive. This way people that excel in Single spades can rank well for their variant. If you like Partners spades, it will be an non issue, since you'll be making partner games, where people that earned ratings for that variant will be the context.

The experience leaderboard is more of a stat, totally a tangent thing.

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by Galt » Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:24 am

Thanks Jonas.

It is very nice to see that, after all of these years, you and the gang still work to improve the site.
Image

User avatar
Humpty Dumpty
Active Poster
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 6:43 pm

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by Humpty Dumpty » Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:56 pm

Alot of good players quit playing high games because of the reason cited by posters here.. if you achieve
high rating, you get harassed as if you must have cheated for it. It quickly becomes not fun when people feel
they have the right to harass any high rater.. alot easier just to stick with low games. Being on the leaderboard
makes you a target. This is not a small problem.

Instead of a leaderboard, how about an icon to show you achieved a certain ranking or rating. Eventually enough people would achieve that icon so they would not be targets by being listed as top on any leaderboard, but
would still be something to strive for with your wins. With 1700 or 1800 you would earn different icons that
would encompass 100 or more pt range. Extrapolate that to all rankings and make every rank happy. Even the
low raters would be thrilled to achieve that icon, even if it means you're still 1500-1600.

I remember when HW was a busy place with high games easy to get with no wait. After a new rating system
gave people many points for a win or loss, everyone wanted to play and were not afraid of losing one game for they knew they'd get it back next game. After the rating system was changed again, with few points for any
win or loss, the psycology kicked in, points became too dear to risk, and nobody will play their high nics.
Go into Smoots any day or night and check out the ratio of prov to games over 1700. That will prove my point.

If you must have a leader board, separate the apples from the oranges and make teams and singles separate.

That would not be my choice of changes however.

Let It Rain
Active Poster
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:39 pm

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by Let It Rain » Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:27 am

This is the biggest issue on HW? :mrgreen:

This takes precedent over New Games? New icons? New Fooms? :(

The biggest issue on HW is the Leader Board? :roll:

Do away with the Leader Board ! End of the BIG issue ! :idea:

If you want to track your stats...Join a League ! :!:

They have every stat you would want ! :D

There are plenty of rated games. :o

Go back and read the Silvercreek advertisements:

"The Classic game springs to life. If you are new to Spades, learn to play Spades with our in-game tutorials. For old Spades pros, and new spades players, you'll be playing a game that looks a whole lot different than what you have seen in the past. Hardwood Spades is full of color and visual effects. Even the cards look great as the flip and turn like REAL playing cards!

You can play spades as one of more than 30 Characters. You are more than just a handful of cards, you are definitely a character! Pick a whimsical character to represent you in the game. You and your opponents could be Knights, Gnomes, or Maidens to name a few! Show other players your true colors as each character is as highly customizable as you are individual.

Let your thoughts be known! Don't take any guff off some Knight! Blast him with Fireball FOOM™ technology! Foom™ effects are special effects that you can throw at your opponents; great for letting them know how you feel about them. Of course you might want to throw a kiss! "

No where do I see the promise of a 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000 game !

And don't forget:

"100% satifaction 30-day Money Back Guarantee!" :mrgreen:

If you want to change something?

Toss the ratings and the Leaderboard !

Good Grief.

:lol:

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by Galt » Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:29 am

I'd think that icons would lead to the same problem as the leaderboards.

Regarding leagues, the problem at HW is that there really are not any leagues.

For some reason, leagues either started as, or at some point turned into, tournament rooms.

A Spades league is supposed to be a place where players hang out and play games. They usually have ladders (which are pretty much meaningless), but at least you can find a whole group of players who challenge each other and play games.

I have no idea why leagues here morphed into tourney rooms. I also don't know if that is why the leagues are so small here. I know that I am a member of two leagues at HW, but I never go into those rooms because all that ever goes on is an endless string of tournaments.

The result, at least here, is that leagues do not offer an option for players looking to play competitive games.

Just to be clear on that point. The tourney games tend to be even less competitive than the Smmots games because one often sees 1900 players playing against 1400 players because games are set based upon nothing more than what teams happen to be ready to play.
Image

bubblegum
Noob
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 4:26 am

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by bubblegum » Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:41 pm

Please just make it streamlined. I hope there is a separate rating for partner games vs individual games. As it is now, it's nearly impossible to to set a high rated game in Smoots and be sure that all players will be relatively equal in skill. There is no system that can make it perfect, it just needs to be improved. I feel the only way to be certain of having a competitive game right now is when I know all of the players at the table. There is a large discrepancy in the skill level between those that play WELL above average and everyone else. This is the reason the cheating accusation comes up so often, as I believe there is FAR less cheating happening then the amount of accusations that come up. The accusations come up because the players just don't realize how much of a skill difference there really is. And speaking from experience, it really sucks to be wrongfully accused of cheating. It's very hard to know the skill level of the players joining the games with the current rating system.

I would also hate to see all of the nics reset. I've been here for almost 3 years now, and don't play enough to get more nics rated so I can have options at nearly every interval of rating. As it currently is, I have some provisional nics, then a large selection from 1700 to high enough to join any game. It would penalize the better players by making them start over and be forced to play in provisional and low rated games before they can play competitive games once again.

The leaderboard isn't really important to me, it was nice to make it on the Top 25 the first time, then nice to make #1 for the first time. I don't play enough now to have any actively rated nics very often. If there is a leaderboard, unfortunately if it's not based on some type of recent play, then it's never going to change much. The highest rated nics will not play often enough to ever create change amongst the leaderboard.

On another tangent, and I may be only player who has a problem with this, but I would like to see the build removed from the profiles. Playing on an Apple computer makes me stick out like a sore thumb. While most of my nics are known anyways, it would be nice to at least have the option to play without being able to be easily spotted by those who know I play on an Apple. There are so few with build 39 or 40, and only two of us that can achieve high ratings.

Good luck with the updates, any approximate idea of when we might be able to expect some changes?

kitten1000
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:16 am

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by kitten1000 » Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:14 am

Leaderboards only ferment cheaters, hackers and bullies. That's why I wont even play rated
got sick of it over the years with all the back stabbing, cheating, hacking, drama and bullying
in games and lobbies.

Takes all the real fun of playing away and instead of making the game
competitive makes it a more hostile environment to play in.

Good players are known for how they play and the really good players
for how they handle themselves and treat others. They don't need a leaderboard
to tell them how good they are. The best leaderboard is the respect of fellow players
and playing without all the bullying,challenges & drama :)

HW Angel
Active Poster
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by HW Angel » Thu Nov 25, 2010 3:56 pm

Hi Jonas. I would prefer you not take away the ratings on my current nics. I never look at leader boards so it is a lot of work and I won't ever look. Quite a few have said they won't look.
Image

Starlight
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:39 pm

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by Starlight » Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:28 am

In the all the years I've been here, I bet I haven't looked at the leaderboard more than twice. All it does is give more incentive to the cheaters imo. I guess having your name in lights on a game site is somethng to brag about even if you didn't earn the placement honestly.

Speking for myself, I see no need for a new leaderboard. What good is it really? Does anyone else on the net care what we do in Hardwood? It won't bring in more new members.

I don't understand the need for it.

User avatar
Jonas
Illuminated One
Illuminated One
Posts: 5002
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Ponder multiple Leaderboards, need feedback.

Post by Jonas » Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:16 pm

Starlight wrote:In the all the years I've been here, I bet I haven't looked at the leaderboard more than twice. All it does is give more incentive to the cheaters imo. I guess having your name in lights on a game site is somethng to brag about even if you didn't earn the placement honestly.

Speking for myself, I see no need for a new leaderboard. What good is it really? Does anyone else on the net care what we do in Hardwood? It won't bring in more new members.

I don't understand the need for it.
Sometimes I wish everyone felt that way, and would just play social games :) Alas, most of you keep on playing rated games.

Post Reply