A coherent list of issues with modern ladder

[Evan20000]

MASSIVE TL;DR INCOMING

I've seen a lot of players agreeing that "Ladder is bad now". However, this doesn't really help admins decide what to improve since nothing specific is mentioned. I've made this thread to lay out my personal problems with the system and to let others do the same.

Ladder was founded under the simple premise of everyone growing as players and having a good time. This works in theory, but there are a few flaws with this system. First off is the rule system. Before I start an admittedly negative rant, I want to congratulate the admin staff for banning custom random and full random. While the rules allow newer players to not feel persecuted by the admins, they still invoke the ire of older players because of just how much they can get away with. While this is all well and good with players who genuinely want to grow, most simply don't care about the effect they're having on the other 9-11 people in the server. While I could launch into a massive philosophical essay about how selfish people as a whole are, I think we can all agree that the number of selfish new players vastly outnumbers the ones that genuinely want to grow and be a part of this community. I'm going to start by going down the list of the rules.

"2) Playing in a maxPing=400 server when you know your connection is too bad to not get continuously disconnected in the middle of a game, causing repeated disruption.".
This happens all too often and is rarely enforced. I'm assuming the intention behind this rule was to regulate the lag among players so everyone can have an enjoyable game. However, due to the way it's worded, players seem to think this means they can do whatever they want with their bad connections as long as they don't lag out. Playing with an outrageous ping to get easy bomb hits is commonplace among certain players. (Not naming names in this thread.) While you could argue "They can't help their high pings and you need to bomb the enemy to win", the truth behind this is that there is almost always a teammate who is capable of running and not disrupting the entire game with lagspikes and lagouts. Now I'm not talking about typical euro ping. I think we've all learned to deal with that as an inevitable part of the game that rarely makes or breaks a game when it would otherwise end a particular way. I'm talking about the people who have/spike to 300+ ping, just under the 400 limit. My proposed fix is implementing a rule: you shouldn't be bombing past 160 or even playing past 300 or while spiking. While this unfortunately excludes Asian players from running the bomb, the 220 ping bombs aren't enjoyable to anyone else in the server.

"3) Speccing because you didn’t know you were supposed to be in the game
4) Speccing as a player for any other reason, either repeatedly or without giving warning."
Okay, you can't tell me you haven't seen this scenario: You start a ladder game with 10-12 people and one person doesn't hit F after the match begins and the planes spawn causing one team to start 5v4. "But the bomb hasn't even spawned in that time. Why does it matter?" you may ask; it matters because one team will have near absolute control of the map and powerups until the other player decides to hit f and start. A recent fad has been to blame accidental joining on mouse control. If you're using a control setup, you're responsible for how it works. That's just the way it works. Unfortunately, this is also rarely enforced. On a more positive note, rule 4 has been enforced much more lately and I would like to give credit where it's due for that: hurray for attentive admins.

"9) Playing a ladder game while under level 13 of any ace rank."
Okay, this one is a biggy. This rule was put into place so that you would be using heavy armor in ladder and not rubber hull. If it's not, I'd like an admin to explain why the arbitrary rank that just happened to be the same as the unlock for HA. This strongly implies that rubber hull is a useless perk in the eyes of the admins (and most players). However, if you aren't banned for using rubber hull or any other seemingly useless perk past rank 13, that begs the question of what the purpose of this rule really is. Most players have been pretty good about this, but newer players tend to join in while rank 7-8 and nobody stops them.

"10) Spectators not using team-chat after being asked to. All-chat is fine until someone asks them to team-chat."
It's obvious why this rule is here. The abuse of it is why it's on this list. Players are content to let their friends talk all they want, but when one certain player says something, it's "SPEC CHAT OR BANZOR". The fact that a rule that was intended to prevent distraction is being used as a "STFU" button is disconcerting. It's even worse when said player is actively engaging their friend in conversation and is suddenly butthurt when someone else starts talking. I strongly recommend a retool of this rule or removal. It's too prone to abuse and is rarely used as intended anyway. On the bright side, it lets us see who the hypocrites among us are.

"12) Playing random, full or custom.
13) Any activity not listed above that can cause a negative experience for others while playing ladder."
This is a much lesser concern as both of these rules are necessities to ladder and are being put to good use, but I propose that the numbers on them be flipped around. Rule 12 was a meme, damnit. It was unneeded to kill it off with a renumbering.

Okay, with all the potential flaws in the existing rules brought into the light, I feel confident that we can move onto the next sticky issue. This one has been the subject of extreme controversy: Perk usage. While limiting players to play only cookie cutter setups is certainly not the way to go, letting perks go unchecked as they currently are is almost as bad. Additionally, the current situation invites trolls and protesters to fly around in their rev rubber dumbbombers claiming it's their favorite plane. This is coming from someone who uses Ace Instincts relatively effectively and is helping to bring the perk back from being lumped into the "Rubber/Rev/Dumbbomb/Tracker" category in player's minds. However, I believe that people should be able to use what they like, only if it works. How would one go about judging this? That's certainly tricky, but I think that if enough ladder "vets" or an admin that's not on the other team tells you to change, you should have to or be faced with a ban. How much is enough? Off the top of my head, I would think a supermajority (2:1) should suffice, but an admin would have final say. If it's clear this system is being abused, warnings/bans could be handed out to the offending party. Also, we would need a more comprehensive definition of what is a "ridiculous" perk setup, which I leave up to the community because I am biased towards Instincts.

As I understand it, admins are instructed to not issue midgame bans, however the cause for the ban usually implies that the game-state has been damaged and isn't repairable to it's current condition. Wouldn't it be better for an admin to just ban the offender and return to the lobby?

I've never run a server before and don't know if this is something that can be changed, or is an issue with altitude itself. The 5 minute delay between votes can be absolutely grating on the nerves. Vote abuse doesn't happen on serious servers, so I'd like to see this removed if possible.

I have to go eat lunch right now. I'll edit more into this post when I'm done.

[nobodyhome]

Before you even posted this, I fixed the issue with rule 12 being rule 12. It is now still rule 12.

[Evan20000]

My apologies, I had the rule page open for a while without refreshing.

[Stormich]

Some admins use more of rule 12 some less, for me rule 12 is the main reason I ban. I feel it's one of the reasons a lot of the hardcore altituders like me, I may be weird and over the top at times but my bans strike true into the hearts of the unjust

[elxir]

i march for freeeeeedommmmmmmmm

[Stormich]

Originally Posted by elxir

i march for freeeeeedommmmmmmmm

Even though I like you, you're lucky you switched perks when Ex asked :P

[elxir]

Even though I like you, you're lucky ex asked. I was gonna give you the finger. :P

[Evan20000]

You're lucky you switched. I was gonna lol hard.

[elxir]

I wasn't thinking. I should have switched to properk

[Evan20000]

Properk automatically makes you good at altitude.

[ryebone]

Thanks for the constructive feedback. The following comments are my own opinion, they do not represent the collective mentality of all admins.

Originally Posted by Evan20000

"2) Playing in a maxPing=400 server when you know your connection is too bad to not get continuously disconnected in the middle of a game, causing repeated disruption.".
This happens all too often and is rarely enforced. I'm assuming the intention behind this rule was to regulate the lag among players so everyone can have an enjoyable game. However, due to the way it's worded, players seem to think this means they can do whatever they want with their bad connections as long as they don't lag out. Playing with an outrageous ping to get easy bomb hits is commonplace among certain players. (Not naming names in this thread.) While you could argue "They can't help their high pings and you need to bomb the enemy to win", the truth behind this is that there is almost always a teammate who is capable of running and not disrupting the entire game with lagspikes and lagouts. Now I'm not talking about typical euro ping. I think we've all learned to deal with that as an inevitable part of the game that rarely makes or breaks a game when it would otherwise end a particular way. I'm talking about the people who have/spike to 300+ ping, just under the 400 limit. My proposed fix is implementing a rule: you shouldn't be bombing past 160 or even playing past 300 or while spiking. While this unfortunately excludes Asian players from running the bomb, the 220 ping bombs aren't enjoyable to anyone else in the server.

This has been talked about before, though I'm not sure if a conclusion was reached. The original reasoning for maxping servers is to prevent people from playing if they have seriously bad pings. That's easy; delving into the issue of bombing and occasional spiking is more difficult. Your proposed fixes do have merit, but are very difficult to enforce. One possibility is to lower the maxping servers to around 250, which is right around european pings and the limit for when lag becomes unbearable (not saying the two are identical).

"3) Speccing because you didn’t know you were supposed to be in the game
4) Speccing as a player for any other reason, either repeatedly or without giving warning."
Okay, you can't tell me you haven't seen this scenario: You start a ladder game with 10-12 people and one person doesn't hit F after the match begins and the planes spawn causing one team to start 5v4. "But the bomb hasn't even spawned in that time. Why does it matter?" you may ask; it matters because one team will have near absolute control of the map and powerups until the other player decides to hit f and start. A recent fad has been to blame accidental joining on mouse control. If you're using a control setup, you're responsible for how it works. That's just the way it works. Unfortunately, this is also rarely enforced. On a more positive note, rule 4 has been enforced much more lately and I would like to give credit where it's due for that: hurray for attentive admins.

Thanks for the compliment I guess haha.

"9) Playing a ladder game while under level 13 of any ace rank."
Okay, this one is a biggy. This rule was put into place so that you would be using heavy armor in ladder and not rubber hull. If it's not, I'd like an admin to explain why the arbitrary rank that just happened to be the same as the unlock for HA. This strongly implies that rubber hull is a useless perk in the eyes of the admins (and most players). However, if you aren't banned for using rubber hull or any other seemingly useless perk past rank 13, that begs the question of what the purpose of this rule really is. Most players have been pretty good about this, but newer players tend to join in while rank 7-8 and nobody stops them.

You're right, the idea for choosing level 13 was to ensure that HA is unlocked. I was the one who came up with that rule specifically (actually I came up with all the rules after a massive banning spree). I understand that while rubber does have it's purposes, it's still considered one of the less useful perks. My reasoning for the rule was that no one should be "forced" to use rubber hull in a game because they don't have other options. If someone "chooses" to use it, that's their prerogative.

It's difficult to stop someone from playing, because sometimes the lobby phase goes too fast to look at everyone's level, issue a warning, then ban them before the game starts. Unfortunately there's no code in place to restrict a game from starting if the server detects someone is under level 13. If I personally see it happen, I issue a direct warning during the game, and if they try to join the next game I will ban immediately.

"10) Spectators not using team-chat after being asked to. All-chat is fine until someone asks them to team-chat."
It's obvious why this rule is here. The abuse of it is why it's on this list. Players are content to let their friends talk all they want, but when one certain player says something, it's "SPEC CHAT OR BANZOR". The fact that a rule that was intended to prevent distraction is being used as a "STFU" button is disconcerting. It's even worse when said player is actively engaging their friend in conversation and is suddenly butthurt when someone else starts talking. I strongly recommend a retool of this rule or removal. It's too prone to abuse and is rarely used as intended anyway. On the bright side, it lets us see who the hypocrites among us are.

When you say that someone is actively engaging their friend in conversation, do you mean someone in spec or in the game? How about this solution: when someone asks for specchat, ALL specs must stop talking on allchat. Do you think that would be better?

"12) Playing random, full or custom.
13) Any activity not listed above that can cause a negative experience for others while playing ladder."
This is a much lesser concern as both of these rules are necessities to ladder and are being put to good use, but I propose that the numbers on them be flipped around. Rule 12 was a meme, damnit. It was unneeded to kill it off with a renumbering.

Nobo has renumbered it. Rule 12 is alive and well.

Okay, with all the potential flaws in the existing rules brought into the light, I feel confident that we can move onto the next sticky issue. This one has been the subject of extreme controversy: Perk usage. While limiting players to play only cookie cutter setups is certainly not the way to go, letting perks go unchecked as they currently are is almost as bad. Additionally, the current situation invites trolls and protesters to fly around in their rev rubber dumbbombers claiming it's their favorite plane. This is coming from someone who uses Ace Instincts relatively effectively and is helping to bring the perk back from being lumped into the "Rubber/Rev/Dumbbomb/Tracker" category in player's minds. However, I believe that people should be able to use what they like, only if it works. How would one go about judging this? That's certainly tricky, but I think that if enough ladder "vets" or an admin that's not on the other team tells you to change, you should have to or be faced with a ban. How much is enough? Off the top of my head, I would think a supermajority (2:1) should suffice, but an admin would have final say. If it's clear this system is being abused, warnings/bans could be handed out to the offending party. Also, we would need a more comprehensive definition of what is a "ridiculous" perk setup, which I leave up to the community because I am biased towards Instincts.

This is a much deeper issue that I don't particularly have the time to write about right now. Sorry

As I understand it, admins are instructed to not issue midgame bans, however the cause for the ban usually implies that the game-state has been damaged and isn't repairable to it's current condition. Wouldn't it be better for an admin to just ban the offender and return to the lobby?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. I feel that the only time your suggestion is viable if if the game was completely even before the bannable action took place. It's unfortunate that we can't be more proactive with bans, but I don't think it's a good idea to stop every game in which a ban occurs.

[Evan20000]

Good responses. My sleeping meds are kicking in, so I'll type up an equally tl;dr response for you in the morning.

[Premier Stalin]

Another problem is that some times if you go to hit the close button, the mouse control locks onto the middle of the screen, causing you to join the game, when in fact you cant play.

[Evan20000]

If you have mouse control enabled, this is your responsibility.

[Premier Stalin]

No it is disabled, but it still locks onto the middle of the screen.

[sunshineduck]

wat

press escape and alt+x (i think) and you won't be having those issues

[Premier Stalin]

cheers ill try that.

[Premier Stalin]

oh wait no i wont bellend. Just googled it :P but nice try...

[sunshineduck]

Originally Posted by Premier Stalin

oh wait no i wont bellend. Just googled it :P but nice try...

...wat

if you press esc and then alt+x while in altitude it closes the game so you won't have your imaginary mouse control issues

[Evan20000]

Originally Posted by ryebone

Thanks for the constructive feedback. The following comments are my own opinion, they do not represent the collective mentality of all admins.

Duly noted.


This has been talked about before, though I'm not sure if a conclusion was reached. The original reasoning for maxping servers is to prevent people from playing if they have seriously bad pings. That's easy; delving into the issue of bombing and occasional spiking is more difficult. Your proposed fixes do have merit, but are very difficult to enforce. One possibility is to lower the maxping servers to around 250, which is right around european pings and the limit for when lag becomes unbearable (not saying the two are identical).

That sounds reasonable.


Thanks for the compliment I guess haha.

^^

You're right, the idea for choosing level 13 was to ensure that HA is unlocked. I was the one who came up with that rule specifically (actually I came up with all the rules after a massive banning spree). I understand that while rubber does have it's purposes, it's still considered one of the less useful perks. My reasoning for the rule was that no one should be "forced" to use rubber hull in a game because they don't have other options. If someone "chooses" to use it, that's their prerogative.

It's difficult to stop someone from playing, because sometimes the lobby phase goes too fast to look at everyone's level, issue a warning, then ban them before the game starts. Unfortunately there's no code in place to restrict a game from starting if the server detects someone is under level 13. If I personally see it happen, I issue a direct warning during the game, and if they try to join the next game I will ban immediately.




When you say that someone is actively engaging their friend in conversation, do you mean someone in spec or in the game? How about this solution: when someone asks for specchat, ALL specs must stop talking on allchat. Do you think that would be better?

What I meant was something like this: Player A and Spec B are chatting about their favorite types of hamster pornography. Spec C chimes in and Player A tells him to spec chat. I suggest that if a player talks, they lose the ability to call Spec Chat for the rest of the game.

Nobo has renumbered it. Rule 12 is alive and well.

/vote kick Ryebone Reason: Rule 12.
Yeah, it works.

This is a much deeper issue that I don't particularly have the time to write about right now. Sorry

Agreed. This is a complicated issue, and I don't see any way to resolve this without someones toes getting stepped on.





I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. I feel that the only time your suggestion is viable if if the game was completely even before the bannable action took place. It's unfortunate that we can't be more proactive with bans, but I don't think it's a good idea to stop every game in which a ban occurs.

That last suggestion was because I've seen a lot of admins forget to ban the player, who then rejoins a few games later and nobody remembers after their minds have been numbed with games of Middleground/Fallout/(Insert long map here). Another alternative is to have a script that bans the player the next time they visit the lobby, but that may be tricky to compose.

I had a massive essay, but then the page timed out and it was all gone. After some raging, I just made some basic points from it.

[shrode]

You forgot smurfing as an issue with the modern ladder. Known smurfs should have their smurf account banned from ladder, as the second accounts obviously do harm, and have no positive effect.

Harmful effects include but are not limited to:
-Unfair games, til the smurf account reaches proper rank (can take awhile in some cases)
-Messing up the rankings. Ladder is for seeing where you are compared to everybody else, but having two of the same person above you skewes this.

[Premier Stalin]

Originally Posted by sunshineduck

...wat

if you press esc and then alt+x while in altitude it closes the game so you won't have your imaginary mouse control issues

I assure u it happens. *Sigh* some people.

[elxir]

Originally Posted by shrode

You forgot smurfing as an issue with the modern ladder. Known smurfs should have their smurf account banned from ladder, as the second accounts obviously do harm, and have no positive effect.

Harmful effects include but are not limited to:
-Unfair games, til the smurf account reaches proper rank (can take awhile in some cases)
-Messing up the rankings. Ladder is for seeing where you are compared to everybody else, but having two of the same person above you skewes this.

meh

if anything a smurf account gives a more accurate picture of a player's skill because it strictly encompasses their current skill level

[Premier Stalin]

Originally Posted by elxir

meh

if anything a smurf account gives a more accurate picture of a player's skill because it strictly encompasses their current skill level

well sort of to a point rather than having built up points over a long time.

[elxir]

yea to elaborate what i mean is, look at someone like SSD

if he played on an alternate account right now his ranking would probably go up instead of languishing in the like 400's

[sunshineduck]

Originally Posted by elxir

yea to elaborate what i mean is, look at someone like SSD

if he played on an alternate account right now his ranking would probably go up instead of languishing in the like 400's

no, I'm hella awful at tbd is why I'm in the 400's @_@

[elxir]

bc ur hella good at avoiding ur best plane

[sunshineduck]

blame kuja

[nobodyhome]

Originally Posted by elxir

meh

if anything a smurf account gives a more accurate picture of a player's skill because it strictly encompasses their current skill level

Untrue. Accounts take a minimum amount of games to settle to their actual level. For someone like Kuja, whose actual rating is 2500, it would take a minimum of 40 games to get from the initial rating of 1500 to his actual rating. If someone happens to be placed on the other team as Kuja for all 40 of these games (unlikely, but possible), he could lose 1000 points through no fault of his own.

Also, keep in mind that the ladder rating system is memoryless--as in, the change in your rating does not take into account your history at all. If you used to be a 1500 player but are now a 2500 player, your history will not hold you back from achieving that 2500 rating.