Should alts be banned on Shoddy 2?

[cantab]

On Shoddy 1, alts are very prevalent. But I feel they should possibly be banned.
The reason is that the way the ranking system works relies on a single player having a single ranking. With alts that's no longer true. If A, who's main account is a 1600 CRE, has an alt at a 1200 CRE, and they beat B at 1300CRE, then B takes an unfair drop to their ranking.
I'm not sure how prevalent alts are, but I suspect it's enough to wholly undermine the ranking system

We can't ban them on Shoddy 1, but the alternative I suggest for Shoddy 2 is an option in the battle finder, to search for rated battles, unrated battles, or both. Those who want to seriously ladder can select rated or unrated as they deem appropriate, while those who just want to play Pokemon can select both, and play as normal, but in an environment where their CRE actually means something. The finding people of similar rank feature could still be used in the unrated battles, which would let the experts test their more experimental teams against each other, rather than having to test them against those of a lower CRE as is the case at present unless they encounter someone else's alt.

Banning alts would also allow converting the CRE into a meaningful percentile rank. It's a lot easier - and more objective - for someone to understand that they are ranked 20% from top than to understand whether a certain CRE is 'good' or not.

(Yes, I know we can play unrated battles already. But there's no automatic finder, and no tiering.)

 

[DJXO9]

On Shoddy 1, alts are very prevalent. But I feel they should possibly be banned.
The reason is that the way the ranking system works relies on a single player having a single ranking. With alts that's no longer true. If A, who's main account is a 1600 CRE, has an alt at a 1200 CRE, and they beat B at 1300CRE, then B takes an unfair drop to their ranking.
I'm not sure how prevalent alts are, but I suspect it's enough to wholly undermine the ranking system

We can't ban them on Shoddy 1, but the alternative I suggest for Shoddy 2 is an option in the battle finder, to search for rated battles, unrated battles, or both. Those who want to seriously ladder can select rated or unrated as they deem appropriate, while those who just want to play Pokemon can select both, and play as normal, but in an environment where their CRE actually means something. The finding people of similar rank feature could still be used in the unrated battles, which would let the experts test their more experimental teams against each other, rather than having to test them against those of a lower CRE as is the case at present unless they encounter someone else's alt.

Banning alts would also allow converting the CRE into a meaningful percentile rank. It's a lot easier - and more objective - for someone to understand that they are ranked 20% from top than to understand whether a certain CRE is 'good' or not.

(Yes, I know we can play unrated battles already. But there's no automatic finder, and no tiering.)

I'm pretty sure there will be no alts allowed anyways on SB2. Right now, there is a reset ladder rankings button, but it doesn't work.

 

[cim]

I would personally like to preserve the use of alts for many reasons.

1. Anonymity: As shitty of a user I am, I still get a lot of random PMs and challenges when I sign in as "Chris is me", so I like to use alts to avoid that sometimes.

2. Test accounts: Teams rarely start out perfect in my team building process, and I'd like to think that's true for many others despite the shitty section in 99% of RMTs. Without test accounts, Glicko2 rankings would be destroyed.

3. Glicko2 rankings for individual teams: With more than one account, you can ladder to the top with one team on one account, then compare it with another to quantitatively measure success.

If alts were banned, I would enjoy Shoddy 2 a lot less, to the point where if another server was reasonably popular with alts allowed, I'd use it.

 

[Super]

It's pretty unreasonable to ban alts. Only method I can see this working is through IPs, which is unreliable because of the existence of proxies and constantly changing IPs (Some ISPs do this). In order to get anywhere proxies have to be banned from Shoddy, but this doesn't work for the latter constant IP changing bullshit. Not to mention, it will probably have the unwanted side-effect of banning siblings or those playing in massive networks like schools. Back when alts were still banned or something I was banned on Shoddy, and when I brought it up to an admin, he asked me about 2 accounts having the same IP. It was because I have a sibling, and although it was resolved it doesn't change the fact its just unplausible to do so.

A better idea is to discourage the use of alts through incentives. I like that thing you mentioned about unrated battle searching, though I can't see it working that well since Shoddy right now matches people who are close in ranking. I don't know about you, but I like to play people similar in level or above. I really only like playing people below in skill level if they're friends or someone who seems cool, but random battles are just that, random.

 

[Tooks]

Good idea.OR you could do the rated or unrated thing where if you want to play seriously you go to "rated" and if you wan to battle for fun you could go to "unrated".<-- That is what you were talking about right?

 

[cantab]

I would personally like to preserve the use of alts for many reasons.

1. Anonymity: As shitty of a user I am, I still get a lot of random PMs and challenges when I sign in as "Chris is me", so I like to use alts to avoid that sometimes.

Anonymity could be provided separately, with an option to log on and have your username appears as 'anonymous #' instead of your login name. (You might have to also hide ratings of anonymous players, to prevent people working backwards using the leaderboard entry).

2. Test accounts: Teams rarely start out perfect in my team building process, and I'd like to think that's true for many others despite the shitty section in 99% of RMTs. Without test accounts, Glicko2 rankings would be destroyed.

In my idea, if you want to test a new team without affecting your ranking, you just choose to play an unrated battle.
Besides, my argument is that WITH alts, Glicko2 rankings are seriously undermined, since we break the basic assumption, that a person has a given strength.

3. Glicko2 rankings for individual teams: With more than one account, you can ladder to the top with one team on one account, then compare it with another to quantitatively measure success.

This is a fair point. However, if we're going to rank specific teams, then trying to do that by pretending the different teams are different players is not I feel the correct solution. I'm not sure what would be though.
And to my knowledge no other competitive activity does this. Chess players don't get different ratings for opening e4 and opening d4. Soccer teams don't play in the league as 4-4-2 and again as 4-3-3 with different players.

If alts were banned, I would enjoy Shoddy 2 a lot less, to the point where if another server was reasonably popular with alts allowed, I'd use it.

I am only in favour of banning alts if we provide credible alternatives. I have described what I think will work.

It's pretty unreasonable to ban alts. <snip>

It's true that it wouldn't be very practical to enforce such a ban. But practically of enforcing a rule shouldn't influence whether it is put in place. The same problems apply to banning multiple accounts on most things online. In the system I am considering, done correctly there would be no legitimate reason to use alts.

I like that thing you mentioned about unrated battle searching, though I can't see it working that well since Shoddy right now matches people who are close in ranking. I don't know about you, but I like to play people similar in level or above.

Which is why I mentioned the unrated battle finder could still match people based on rating. It just wouldn't CHANGE their ratings based on the battle result.

 

[Aquamentus]

Personally, I wouldn't use alts if I could just change my name mid-session like on IRC. Maybe there could be a button somewhere to reset your ladder scores, as well, as if you were starting a new account? You'd still be facing good players unfairly low on the ladder, though. I guess it's a question of whether or not it's fair to be able to discard your score and restart whenever you do poorly, or your volatility gets crappy, or whatever you crazy ladderers worry about. That's a lot more important right now than just how alts waste data space on servers...

 

[Platyp]

In my idea, if you want to test a new team without affecting your ranking, you just choose to play an unrated battle.
Besides, my argument is that WITH alts, Glicko2 rankings are seriously undermined, since we break the basic assumption, that a person has a given strength.

But wouldn't you also be playing a bunch of other players who are using the unrated matchfinder for the same purpose? If so, "testing" your team might not be as effective in unrated because you would be playing a bunch of other teams that aren't yet polished.

 

[cantab]

But wouldn't you also be playing a bunch of other players who are using the unrated matchfinder for the same purpose? If so, "testing" your team might not be as effective in unrated because you would be playing a bunch of other teams that aren't yet polished.

That's true at the very top level, where people are only going to play ladder matches with their best teams. At lower levels, however, you'll also be facing people who've chosen 'find both'; people whose primary interest is playing, not laddering.
Also, with the current system, your alt, being lower ranked, is going to pit you against other lower ranked players - whether people who truly rank lower, or other alts and thus experimental teams - anyway.

We could in fact klugdily implement my suggestion on shoddy 1, by creating two servers - a main one with alts banned, and an alts one for people to test out ideas without impacting their primary rating. But there might be trouble with quality and number of opposition on the alts server.

 

[Zach]

Perhaps a person would only be allowed to have one name at a time, and would be able to create a new name on the condition that the current one is deleted.

 

[Engineer Pikachu]

2. Test accounts: Teams rarely start out perfect in my team building process, and I'd like to think that's true for many others despite the shitty section in 99% of RMTs. Without test accounts, Glicko2 rankings would be destroyed.

In my idea, if you want to test a new team without affecting your ranking, you just choose to play an unrated battle.
Besides, my argument is that WITH alts, Glicko2 rankings are seriously undermined, since we break the basic assumption, that a person has a given strength.

Agreeing with what someone said, in unrated, most teams aren't completely refined, and if your idea is implemented, even more teams in unrated will be crappier than polished ones.

 

[cantab]

Agreeing with what someone said, in unrated, most teams aren't completely refined, and if your idea is implemented, even more teams in unrated will be crappier than polished ones.

The idea that there is the option to search for either will mitigate this to an extent, since people who just want to battle and aren't seriously laddering will appear for battle with others who have chosen specifically rated and specifically unrated.
Asymmetric rating would be another possibility - one player's rating gets updated after battle, while the other's does not. But I think that potentially leads to drift - the person playing unrated is likely to be using the weaker team, and thus more likely to lose; over many matches this will result in ratings inflation.

For an alternative option - perhaps a system of a main and a subsidiary rating, and the option to play under either. This would be similar to having one alt, but it might be possible to have the subsidiary rating track the main in some way, while being allowed a degree of deviation. It could be implemented as alts, with an extra module or something on the server that updates alt ratings to track their mains'. This is thus more similar to the existing practice of alts.

A much simpler option, that would require little change from current practice and yet address one of my concerns, is that alts be denoted as such. One could then percentile rank mains, ignoring alts. It doesn't help all the issues, but it makes possible what originally caused my concern about alts - the fact that they render a percentile ranking invalid.

 

[undisputed]

It sounds like the issue is that alts undermine the ranking system. is it not?

Here's a potential idea, but I may be overlooking something obvious.

There could be a "test" mode that a player could go under, that generates a test ranking. This test mode would be used on the regular ladder, but it will not affect any people's scores but the tester's.

So, say i want to test a team, but i dont want to make my real rating go down, i hit the test tab and i go ladder. my rating will go up and down like it normally would, but it has no potential to go on the leaderboard or affect someone else's ranking.

does that make sense? am i being foolish?

 

[Sledge]

The problem I see is that it wouldn't affect other people's rankings which if someone is trying to get on the leaderboard or ladder seriously it could "waste their time" with an unecessary battle. If anything there should be just a test ladder, or unrated like many other people have suggested.

 

[Duck92]

Why don't the first time you sign into a server your IP is given a number tied with your username, ISP, IP, and a binary coded 100 digit number. If one doesn't match but another does, the others are filled in. And to test accounts just add 'test team' on the ladder. And for anonamous things, once you sign on you have an option to hide or disguise your username.

 

[Platyp]

That's true at the very top level, where people are only going to play ladder matches with their best teams. At lower levels, however, you'll also be facing people who've chosen 'find both'; people whose primary interest is playing, not laddering.
Also, with the current system, your alt, being lower ranked, is going to pit you against other lower ranked players - whether people who truly rank lower, or other alts and thus experimental teams - anyway.

We could in fact klugdily implement my suggestion on shoddy 1, by creating two servers - a main one with alts banned, and an alts one for people to test out ideas without impacting their primary rating. But there might be trouble with quality and number of opposition on the alts server.

In the current ladder system, your alt will pit you against people who truly are inferiorly skilled at the game, not simply testing a (potentially) bad team. There's a difference between the two. A potentially bad team will get better and rise out of the lower ranks more quickly, while those who aren't as good at the game will be slower at gaining experience, knowledge, and skill.

 

[X-Act]

I just want to say that if you want to test a team, this should obviously be allowed, but as a non-ladder game. I think that you should have the option to test with whoever you want in this case too, not be assigned a random player by the program.

The way we should start looking at the ladder in Shoddy2 is akin to a chess player rating - and no chess player has two different ratings due to different accounts.

In short, you should have one rating for whenever you play on the ladder, and no rating at all for whenever you want to test.

 

[Imran]

I thought we were having a "no spectators" option on SB2, that would kill the watching issue. Then with GLIXARE, we would be able to have a system that stops the other cause of alt creation (accounts getting too high a deviation.) This was one of the advantages of GLIXARE wasn't it (hope I got that right)

So yeah alts will be pointless - and the OP makes a lot of good points. One rating for everyone sounds great tbh.

 

[reyscarface]

I thought we were having a "no spectators" option on SB2, that would kill the watching issue. Then with GLIXARE, we would be able to have a system that stops the other cause of alt creation (accounts getting too high a deviation.) This was one of the advantages of GLIXARE wasn't it (hope I got that right)

So yeah alts will be pointless - and the OP makes a lot of good points. One rating for everyone sounds great tbh.

What if you face people you know. If im in my main, in which I will have to be since I cant have alts, and I face someone I know, that would like give away my team, and even if its just 1 person, it can repeat with more people I know or something.

 

[cantab]

What if you face people you know. If im in my main, in which I will have to be since I cant have alts, and I face someone I know, that would like give away my team, and even if its just 1 person, it can repeat with more people I know or something.

This is true. But the same goes for other competitive activities. Chess players will know what openings other chess players favour. Football teams know a lot about each other. Formula 1 teams know exactly how fast their competitors' cars are going to be. Why shouldn't people's Pokemon teams be semi-public knowledge?

 

[gaudetjaja]

I wholly support this idea of no alts.

These are things people use alts for, if there are more uses please say so:

1. Testing teams without hurting your ladder position - this can be done via a very convenient 'unrated' automatic battle finding system, like we have in our current ladder.
2. preserving anonimity - I really don't think this is an issue as there will be an option to stop challenges...
3. Avoiding that people know your team - simply don't make it public! Of course it may happen that you battle someone twice, but I have had this happen to me on shoddy 1 as well (I think I once battled the same person three times...) It may happen that you are known to favour a certain playing style, but you yourself can turn this in your favour. It will add an extra depth to the metagame I think, if anything at all.
4. Scouting - no spectators option

 

[Anachronism]

I think that having a seperate testing ladder wouldn't solve anything. I think that it will just end up like the unrated ladder now. You will probably end up playing a lot of randoms with dumb teams who don't want to play a real game but don't want to go on the worse unrated ladder. Then all of the decent/good players will stay away from it, and it will simply be unrated 2 because none of the good players will bother testing against other crappy people. Then again, having only one main account may be enough to force this. There is also the concern that everyone will be testing most of the time, and when you actually want to ladder then there won't be many people there.

One thing that would be nice about this is that there would be no more troll alts or offensive alts because people would *hopefully* not want to waste their main on stupid stuff like (BAN ME PLEASE)S_SMELL (yeah, I saw that yesterday :/)

 

[A.P.]

How about a max of two accounts per person?

 

[jc104]

I think that having a seperate testing ladder wouldn't solve anything. I think that it will just end up like the unrated ladder now. You will probably end up playing a lot of randoms with dumb teams who don't want to play a real game but don't want to go on the worse unrated ladder. Then all of the decent/good players will stay away from it, and it will simply be unrated 2 because none of the good players will bother testing against other crappy people. Then again, having only one main account may be enough to force this. There is also the concern that everyone will be testing most of the time, and when you actually want to ladder then there won't be many people there.

One thing that would be nice about this is that there would be no more troll alts or offensive alts because people would *hopefully* not want to waste their main on stupid stuff like (BAN ME PLEASE)S_SMELL (yeah, I saw that yesterday :/)

I think cantab's idea was that you would battle people with a similar rating to yours (obtained from the ladder) even in the unrated "testing" environment

 

[Zach]

There is already an option to disallow challenges in Shoddy 1, as well