Im largely in the same boat as Sunyaku and Doiron. From 1500 to 1200 in a few days. Not that I care about ratings but it limits who i can play with most of the time. I always click anyone, but people mostly click similiar....

All my free gold comes from the free tournaments i doubt i got even 50g from the leagues total ever. Actually I largely stopped playing cause casual games were all but gone cause people took stupid league like it was some cutthroat serious thing.

Situation is much nicer now (probably cause people are still experimenting with the new set), hope it lasts.

Honestly the league and the similiar button was the worst thing to happen to TFW.


...yes i know... stupid ranting on my behalf, guess its that time of the year lol....

-side note: lots of my friends that tried TFW were very unimpressed with either getting their asses kicked in or their opponent forfeiting though he was kicking their asses in .lol. Either way what i meant to say is that TFW isnt (wasnt?) newbie-friendly. Though theyre just pansies lol. Also goddamned world of warcraft

=side note two:@Keyser, something like what youre trying should be done, but you need to rethink the vocabulary used in such matters. Ie. "manipulating rating". Manipulating how? In what ways exactly? Your current version of this could mean just plain winning even... "Legalese" is quite a beast compared to plain ol' English. Still, good luck with the endeavor.

PS. -there is no PS
PSS. -no really there isnt

Excuse me, but why was this posted just in the middle of this thread? You could have posted it in the news and updates where it belongs and put a link here. Now this thread is overtaken by discussion about the new rules in general, which have actually very little to do with the topic: there is no way to enforce these rules, and they most likely will end up having little effect in domain leagues. The people involved in bribery and other forms of cheating still know who to contact, they will just be less open about it now. Most of the discussion before posting that ruleset was about how to make bribery, predetermined resignations and "noob-hunting" less appealing and beneficial.

That being said, of course rules and terms & conditions are important, but they hardly are an effective solution here.

Actually, I don't see you as violating the system, not one bit. You've said a couple of times that you think it's unfair for your rating to appear to be lower than it should be because of the uncertainty and are lobbying for a change in the way rankings work.

You aren't manipulating the system to your advantage.

In addition, you haven't abused that deceptively low ranking to gain a significant amount of gold.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this thread was about what could be done about stopping certain behaviors in domains.

The solution begins with making such behaviors against the rules.

The solution continues with enforcing such a thing.

No way to enforce? What's the usual way that someone sells/buys games? In most cases, they play two games quite quickly, resigning in one of the first couple of turns. Seems like an easy check to do a search and see if there were two back to back resignations.

Another way: whenever you see players playing that you feel are cheating, hop in and watch the game, and see if they are. Snap a screen, record the game number, and report it to Jed.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

Minorly guilty here: I resigned one game I probably would have won against a player who was excited about the possibility of actually getting some gold from the league while a loss against me would have ensured both of us were out of anything more than about 10g. I don't even remember who that player was now. A more balanced prize structure would prevent the incentive to do something like that...although even published rules would probably have stopped me in that case.

Isn't there already a 2 games vs a player in a week limit in domain?

What if there was a 1 game vs each player each week limit...but no maximum number of games limit? With 3 points for a win, 1 point for a loss, winning would still be important, but even losing a game against a player would be better than not playing them that week. To prevent early resignations, maybe make games that go less than X minutes not count for the loser. Noob hunting is replaced by opponent hunting and we all win.

Almost every game I play ends in resignation when one player or the other realizes they're out of options. Eliminating the resignation feature just makes people end up passing repeatedly instead.

I think getting rid of alts completely would help a lot of things:
+ Rating system could more accurately reflect the player's skill level.
+ Less possible quid pro quo in game throwing (ex. No possibility of, "I'll throw my games to you, you throw your alts games to my alt.")
+/- No ability to enter a given league more than once.

If in the last round of the EC, one person forfeits and the two players split the Power 2 and 2. Is that considered cheating under the new rules? I've done this a few times.

The new policy seems really harsh.

My point is that it is somewhat difficult to determine "intent" the way this is currently worded. Sure, some cases will be more obvious than others, but let's look at the facts of my case (puts on belligerent prosecutor hat):

1) Intentionally let uncertainty grow.
2) High uncertainty, in conjunction with a few losses, dramatically reduced rating.
3) Gold was earned in ladder by defeating several relatively new players.

And this is where things get sticky. How do you determine "intent" within the confines of a system that allows the activity? I know this will probably only be used against clear offenders... I guess I'm just a policy stickler.

Could some moderator (I guess either Keyser, Jed or Altren) please split this thread into one about the new rules and one about improving domain league's format? I still think the rule discussion should go to news and updates or at least into its own thread. And this message can be removed too.. or maybe I'm asking for too much... again?

headshot:

You are high maintenance man, it is not your fault though. Genetics! Blame the passion and love your parents felt when they made you. jk of course. A new policy 100% needs to be posted/stickied for maximal visibility. I agree with the logic of your statement.

Toodles,

DarkJello

_________________
Ad astra per alia porci!$!

I've never accepted the offer, and it hasn't happened recently, but I have definitely been offered gold to throw a domain game, and I wasn't happy about it.