#Should you still gain OS even if you !resign from a game?

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

simple carbon
#

As above, it was discussed a little in https://discord.com/channels/549281623154229250/1312826116444258384, but ultimately i think deserves its own topic

I believe this creates perverse incentives and creates ways to game the OS / !balance system

Current situation:

If you are present for 90% of a game, or crashed and are re-joining you gain OS if your team wins, otherwise you lose OS if your team lose, but do not gain OS if they win.

Examples

  1. You !resign at 08:55, your team wins at 10:00 - you do not gain OS
  2. You !resign at 08:55, your team wins at 09:30 - you gain OS
  3. You !resign at any time, your team loses, you lose OS

Proposed change:

Since the game started !balanced assuming all players would play when the game started all those present should have their OS impacted by the outcome of the game be that + or -

Some points:

  • People coming to #main somewhat often asking why a game didn't count, or if there is some reason they didn't gain OS for a match when they lost for other matches that they left - it seems to confuse people and be unexpected behaviour
  • !resigning can be used to manipulate your OS to some extent e.g. prevent it going up, since you can have enough of an impact and then !resign, also providing an op-take when you leave that means your actions caused the game outcome, and thus your OS should increase

Thoughts?

cinder cove
#

If the issue is OS manipulation, there are so many much more effective ways to do it

simple carbon
#

So please, either be forthcoming with them, so the pros and cons can be discussed, or critique & refute this idea so it can be as good as it can be

cinder cove
#

Im pretty sure they are fixing all that with the new client lobby, best to wait until it's there to help devs once it's there to start testing

simple carbon
sly hatch
#

The one thing I am worried of is this would compound the issues with the current high os experience as I understand it most high os abuse the system to stay lower then they should theoretically be as playing with high os takes the fun out of the game for them. I would argue that solving the problems that make higher os feel the need to stay low is more important, and if that cant be done yet I could carefully consider how this might make the higher os people react and feel.

dense shard
sly hatch
foggy badger
#

What is the original motivation to not award OS to players who resigned early? If it was implemented to deter players from resigning too early, I don't think it's serving it's purpose.

dense shard
sly hatch
dense shard
frail lance
#

I agree with your proposal, I mentioned this previously in the past multiple times, ratings should only be used for balancing games not moderating against early leaves. We can have dynamic match cooldowns to deal with frequent resigns if they become an issue.

#

In fact, I will draft a PR for this, it should be a simple change.

sly hatch
simple carbon
sly hatch
#

but iirc that was already discussed and planned

frail lance
#

Yea I agree with that as well but that's a topic for another thread and new lobby probably

dense shard
#

Reason C the thread? :p

sly hatch
#

Agreed but as I said above this should happen but I should be done in a way so it also doesn't strong arm the High OS players into having a bad experience by solving some of the incentives first

cinder cove
sly hatch
frail lance
#

PR opened

#

Leave/resign status is still being tracked and could potentially be used for some sort of automated match cooldown if you often leave or resign early, but this is a subject for another discussion and PR

simple carbon
frail lance
chrome wigeon
# foggy badger What is the original motivation to not award OS to players who resigned early? I...

I think the original intention is that if you resign in the first 1 minute, then you didn't really contribute to the team's win or loss so why should your rating change. It's as if you weren't there. But setting it at 90% threshold is too much in my opinion. Just surviving 5 minutes is enough to impact the game.

I think that someone who immediately leaves the match because they didn't like the spawn or teams should not have their rating affected. The match should be rated pretending they didn't exist. However, this situation is rare so it's not a huge deal if we don't do it this way.

I think Lexon's PR is fine unless someone can think of some exploits. But do realise that if someone leaves immediately on your team the library will still treat this as an 8v8 game rather than an 7v8 game. It will think the teams are balanced when in fact they are not.

frail lance
#

If people think it's an issue and someone leaves that early games are usually restarted

karmic kestrel
#

BAR is constructed in such a way that 1 player resigning can make a sure lose game into a win so I dont think you should be penalized for resigning when often its the winning play.

chrome wigeon
cinder cove
simple carbon
#

Is that a good thing? I can't think of any other games where losing a player from a team is considered a good thing

karmic kestrel
#

It fosters a toxic atmosphere when best play of 10 os player is to resign and give his shit to blue/red. So u are either playing to win (resign) or trolling. Lose - lose situation.

dense shard
trail torrent
#

That actually just made me think of this time I played a large team game in Warlight (Risk like turn-based game) and I was the best player on my team. I found myself just telling everyone what to do instead of letting them do their own thing, and realized that was kind of taking away the fun for them since many of them didn't really have any purpose by being on the team. It was better for them to do what I said than what they would have done otherwise with their units/orders and made me not want to play those large team sized games any more after that. I was able to enjoy some 2v2s after that, but only when I had a partner that was good enough to actually contribute some useful ideas and perspectives that we complimented each other as a team.

In some ways, it means that game was worse for large team games, because BAR still has a use for many extra players to micro units. The problem there is people need to clearly know you are still there and ready to take control of units and also there is the issue of powering units to be able to fire them. If there was a better mechanic for players with no e-income to use energy from other players energy just to fire stuff, then people would more readily be able to help their team when they had no base. I've had situations where I lost everything, wanted to micro some units, they gave me some units, but no e-buildings, and I had to give the units back because I couldn't fire them, which was unfortunate. This lacking of energy by individuals is also relevant for strategy sometimes as people sometimes have a short need from energy from team and don't get it when they need to cloak or dgun with their commander, can't, and fail at a critical juncture (like trying to dgun an early Tzar on Isthmus), where if things were different they may be able to draw from teammates to do so. Point being, resources and units can be shared tax free, but are still individualistic, which makes things weird at times and creates such issues.

#

To the original post, I think if you leave super early to the point that the person had no impact and shouldnt' get any credit, then the game should automatically become unranked for everyone and people should know so they can stop and remake with a proper team. If someone stays long enough to be relevant, everyone should gain/lose OS even if they leave early. Also I'm not sure how the system handles people that leave and return due to a disconnect, but they should get credit for returning. I had one game, my longest BAR game ever, where I was playing for 10-15 minutes, got disconnected due to internet going down, so was out for several minutes, returned, and then got back into playing the game, and then the game ended up going over 2 hours and we eventually won after a huge turtle and rebound because. And part of how I got back in the game after losing my stuff was people leaving due to running out of time to play because it went so long, but they absolutely should still have gotten credit for the win even though they left early because they were still there for a good portion of the game and plenty relevant. (I didn't get credit for that game either, not sure if because it thought I was an early leaver or because it just didn't get processed for being so long or another reason).

Also, the OS system is trash at handling games with uneven players as far as I can tell, its predictions are way off, because this game is uncommon in how resource/unit sharing work and with how resource scaling works. Therefore it will also adjust ratings afterwards in a poor fashion when the result happens. When I was running my OS simulations I realized in the data were about 600 games with uneven teams, the predictions for those games were wildly off in underestimating the team that was down a player and I ended up just filtering those games out because it's counterproductive to the OS ratings to make adjustments from uneven player games.

#

In other games, when you lose a player, it's a huge deal or at least the drop in Mu from the team from the player lost is proportional to the team's loss from being down a player. But in this game since another player can just take over their stuff, it can be advantageous in many situations. Like in the Warlight game I mentioned, if the other person on my team totally ignored me, they'd be performing at their level, but if they listened, they'd be performing at my level, so in teams/games where someone can listen/share with a higher skilled player, depending on their willingness to do so, they can get an effective boost up to a point by simply taking themselves out of the game and essentially perform better than they would be if they were the highest skilled player on the team and didn't have anyone to artificially boost their performance.

fluid turret
#

of course you should gain os for winning a game, why is this even a thread

#

if players resigning is found to be an issue, that should be addressed separately.

fluid turret
#

its a team game; you should gain os when your team wins even if you only played 1% of the game's duration. It's just that simple.

the moment you start adding in variables to determine whether someone deserves their os or not, you create opportunities to game the system.

Right now when the game start I can give my commander away, put my sliders down and leave my computer. Effectively the same as if I was resigned, but since I didn't hit the resign button, im somehow more entitled to my os gains if my team win than someone who played 89% of the game's duration?

#

also, how is the OS distribution supposed to work if 8 player lose OS for a lose, but on average, less than 8 players gain OS for a win?

#

the person that resigned at 89% game duration is statistically likely to have had more positive impact than at least some players on his team that stayed the whole 100% of the game duration

chrome wigeon
#

The more I think about it, the more I realise that even someone who immediately resigns needs to be rated. Because they actually have impact on the game. If you had to choose between a 0 os player or someone who will immediately resign - you'd choose the latter (since his commander and territory would be used by the captain). Someone immediately resigning is worth more than a 0 rated player. What they are worth exactly would be found after being rated many times.

frail lance
#

The extreme situation, lowest OS on team gifting all units to top OS on team and then resigning should still be rated.

frail lance
#

Anyway the PR has been merged and will be deployed soon.

cinder cove
#

No more resigning to scam OS abuse?

frail lance
#

No, it's done

simple carbon
#

Many thanks @frail lance

@thorn fractal Close with C? ❤️