Suggestions

[Zarel*]

A silence feature, or just an ignore spects feature? Those are different, after all.

I can make a command-line ignore spectators feature without too much difficulty, I think.

[Amarillo]

I guess that silence has obnoxious opponents (as opposed to an obnoxious spectator) covered over ignore specs, I guess... but ignore specs is easier to do idk and doesn't require additional interface other than a single button? (I'm assuming silence differs from ignore specs in that silence can direct a single person? In which case you'll need additional interface choosing who to silence, etc.)

Either really works for my purpose. Probably best off asking around which would be more efficient, but I'd be satisfied with either or.

Another 'suggestion' I have is something entirely different: about the 'broken' ladder. Currently, there are 3 types of results. First is the natural 'winner wins points, loser loses points.' There are two ways this could go wrong: either the 'winner wins points, loser also wins points', and the worst case scenario is 'winner loses points, loser wins points.'

In my opinion, preventing the last case scenario is enough. Yeah you'll still get people complaining about the second case. But, the loser must be significantly lower in ratings, and consequently not be anyone of much importance when it comes to laddering. Maybe calculate what range of opponent ratings would make you not lose points, and effectively run the ladder on a big rating differential range? I'm thinking of something similar to "I want to fight people within such and such rating range" function in PO. Except that it will beforehand calculate the rating range for you so that you don't lose points when you win, and that this is done automatically. Would this be too hard of a matchmaking to implement? (Remember I don't know anything about programming lol)

I play NU so I know about the 'empty ladder' problem, but I have plenty of battles where I win points off of winning. Almost every other battle is now a second-scenario and my opponent gains points, but really I couldn't care less. Last case scenario is really really rare from my experience, even in small ladders. It came to me maybe twice? over 60~70 battles or so. Preventing these battles won't make your queue time significantly longer. I don't care that a guy won 50 points off of losing to me; I do care that I lose 30 points off of winning.

[MJB]

Originally Posted by Fat Amarillo

I guess that silence has obnoxious opponents (as opposed to an obnoxious spectator) covered over ignore specs, I guess... but ignore specs is easier to do idk and doesn't require additional interface other than a single button? (I'm assuming silence differs from ignore specs in that silence can direct a single person? In which case you'll need additional interface choosing who to silence, etc.)

Either really works for my purpose. Probably best off asking around which would be more efficient, but I'd be satisfied with either or.

Another 'suggestion' I have is something entirely different: about the 'broken' ladder. Currently, there are 3 types of results. First is the natural 'winner wins points, loser loses points.' There are two ways this could go wrong: either the 'winner wins points, loser also wins points', and the worst case scenario is 'winner loses points, loser wins points.'

In my opinion, preventing the last case scenario is enough. Yeah you'll still get people complaining about the second case. But, the loser must be significantly lower in ratings, and consequently not be anyone of much importance when it comes to laddering. Maybe calculate what range of opponent ratings would make you not lose points, and effectively run the ladder on a big rating differential range? I'm thinking of something similar to "I want to fight people within such and such rating range" function in PO. Except that it will beforehand calculate the rating range for you so that you don't lose points when you win, and that this is done automatically. Would this be too hard of a matchmaking to implement? (Remember I don't know anything about programming lol)

I play NU so I know about the 'empty ladder' problem, but I have plenty of battles where I win points off of winning. Almost every other battle is now a second-scenario and my opponent gains points, but really I couldn't care less. Last case scenario is really really rare from my experience, even in small ladders. It came to me maybe twice? over 60~70 battles or so. Preventing these battles won't make your queue time significantly longer. I don't care that a guy won 50 points off of losing to me; I do care that I lose 30 points off of winning.

The loser gaining points is intended and part of the rating system. Basically they have few games played recently so they gain points so the system can but them where it thinks they belong faster.

I havn't seen someone lose points for winning for a few months now (since the ladder was last improved". Mind you I pretty much solely play ou but I havn't seen mention of this in the chat so idk.

[Amarillo]

I really hate to repeat myself. I haven't complained about loser gaining points, nor do I care. I suggest that you read my main suggestion tyvm.

I say people cannot no longer complain about this on the chat because the moment "ladder rating issue" pops up you guys mechanically answer "it's the way it is" and proceed to ignore him / her. Case and point, heh. And most people's come to accept it the way it is.

It still happens. And I am offering a solution. Other than our current solution, just ignoring as if this doesn't happen.

And rofl main chat....

I am aware of the suggestion for a rating range for matchmaking. I'm trying to comment and add on it, saying that the rating range for matchmaking need not lead to empty ladder and long queue times. It will lead to long queue hours if we intend to make every battle the case of winner gain points, loser lose points. It will not lead to long queues if we make it so that winner doesn't lose points and that's enough. And even if this were to lead to long queue times, I'd rather not play and wait longer for a battle to climb up than play more and lose more rating?

There's a reason why people think the current ladder is a joke.

[MJB]

Maybe you should read what I wrote and notice that I never said anything about you complaining, nor disregarding your suggestion.

I am not here to implement suggestions or pass judgement on them, I am simply in this thread to clear up confusion and give insight into current solutions to people problems, that is not to say that your or anyone else's suggestion will not be implemented simply because I give an alternative (temporary) solution.

[Amarillo]

The only difference I have seen (from a user standpoint) with the new ladder is that whenever you lose points via winning, it says "ladder failed to update." It doesn't fail to update, though. It just masks the fact that you lost points that way. Just stops the majority of careless people from whining. If you check /rating before and after you will realize that it has dropped. I guess from the programmer standpoint, you intend to simply ignore that battle for rating update purposes?

I guess a blanket ignore is plain easier to execute than implementing a rating-range in find battle queues.

[mikel]

Originally Posted by Fat Amarillo

The only difference I have seen (from a user standpoint) with the new ladder is that whenever you lose points via winning, it says "ladder failed to update." It doesn't fail to update, though. It just masks the fact that you lost points that way. Just stops the majority of careless people from whining. If you check /rating before and after you will realize that it has dropped. I guess from the programmer standpoint, you intend to simply ignore that battle for rating update purposes?

I guess a blanket ignore is plain easier to execute than implementing a rating-range in find battle queues.

There is a rating matchup system, and the source code is on the Pokemon Showdown GitHub here.

For OU and Randbats, the range starts at plus or minus 200, which increases by 1 point every .6 seconds. For other tiers, it is just plus or minus 400.

[MJB]

Originally Posted by Fat Amarillo

The only difference I have seen (from a user standpoint) with the new ladder is that whenever you lose points via winning, it says "ladder failed to update." It doesn't fail to update, though. It just masks the fact that you lost points that way. Just stops the majority of careless people from whining. If you check /rating before and after you will realize that it has dropped. I guess from the programmer standpoint, you intend to simply ignore that battle for rating update purposes?

I guess a blanket ignore is plain easier to execute than implementing a rating-range in find battle queues.

I don't think this is accurate, though I may be mistaken. This happens becuase the ladder actually crashes temporarily, though usually you still gain/lose the points you should have anyway. Everytime I have managed to check though I have gained the points that I won however if you are losing points for winning care to post a log? As I said before I havn't seen this in months and (I believe) this is unintended.

[BlackLight]

I'm wondering if we can have the option of ignoring/hiding the chat. Its rather distracting while trying to make a team, and I really don't want to see another debate on which Generation has the best Pokemon. It would be really great if we could just put it away for a little while.

[Arcticblast]

You can always zoom in until the chat is invisible.

[Amarillo]

Well, now I know there's a ladder rating range! Well, disregard what i said about it then, unless I can come up with a more sophisticated range or something lol! I can't really program unless someone teaches me so remember I'm not quite certain on what things are programmable and what things aren't! But I can tell which things might be, given how other simulators could do it or not.

What I was thinking was: remember in PO where they give you what the rating differentials will be depending on who won? I mean making this visible has consequences that isn't really intended, (especially when they have a draw button in PO), so I'm against this being readily visible. Still, it can internally calculate the differentials and at least call the game off or something when the winner stands to lose points? It'd be even better if you don't physically see the battle found and it getting cancelled, though!

Originally Posted by Fat MJB

I don't think this is accurate, though I may be mistaken. This happens becuase the ladder actually crashes temporarily, though usually you still gain/lose the points you should have anyway. Everytime I have managed to check though I have gained the points that I won however if you are losing points for winning care to post a log? As I said before I havn't seen this in months and (I believe) this is unintended.

Lol it's just the blanket statement that says "Error: ladder failed to update" - not the exact wording but you get the point??? And how am I supposed to take "logs" when it really nothing much else happened and I just assumed "oh the ladder is broken like it's been for the last 4 months or whatever."

So I have no concrete log whatsoever. Why would I lie, though? I even believe this is a "glitch" in glicko-2 itself, and i don't think this will ever be "fixed" in the proper sense?

ps: I'm confused about how you say the ladder has been "improved." From the user standpoint, the ladder hasn't been touched on for eons because the same stuff keeps happening? But let's not get into "gdi the ladder is broken" because everyone knows it's broken and everyone knows Zarel's working hard to get it fixed.

[Great Sage]

In most cases where it says "ladder failed to update", it updates anyway. Zarel made a change that supposedly prevents losing points for winning; I have not heard any verifiable complaints about losing points for winning in several weeks. It is completely correct that sometimes, a person who loses gains points. The gain / loss you see is applied to the ACRE, not the actual Glicko2 rating; ACRE is approximately your Glicko2 rating minus 1.4x your deviation. It is possible for your Glicko2 rating to drop, but for your deviation to drop by an even more substantial amount, and therefore for your ACRE to rise. I don't know where you are getting the impression that the ladder is "broken"; I am very pleased with the results of the modifications from a few weeks ago, and I have not noticed any commonplace or extremely bad errors.

[yoyohobojo]

SOME of the moderators are utter garbage and don't follow the rules they themselves quote. It is pretty ridiculous to be redirected to links that tell me that I am gay or to **** off. First off, I know that I am gay, I don't need a moderator to use that as an insult towards me, second off, moderators should be given less power, because right now I'm seeing a "*#@# reasoning, I'm a PS mod, no one will punish me for ending chats or banning users for whatever reason" kind of mentality.

[Relados]

Originally Posted by Fat yoyohobojo

SOME of the moderators are utter garbage and don't follow the rules they themselves quote. It is pretty ridiculous to be redirected to links that tell me that I am gay or to **** off. First off, I know that I am gay, I don't need a moderator to use that as an insult towards me, second off, moderators should be given less power, because right now I'm seeing a "*#@# reasoning, I'm a PS mod, no one will punish me for ending chats or banning users for whatever reason" kind of mentality.

Moderators usually redirect or kick someone for breaking the rules in some way. While the sites may seem rude at times, they are not a personal attack on your character or beliefs, nor should you treat it as such. Rather, you should review the rules to know why you were kicked. Also, it is difficult to tell what you are referring to without specific examples.

[yoyohobojo]

Will a moderator lose privileges if I screencap repeated cases of mod abuse?

[MJB]

Originally Posted by Fat yoyohobojo

Will a moderator lose privileges if I screencap repeated cases of mod abuse?

Yes, moderators do get punished if they are found to be overly abusive of their powers

[JacobNinja]

fine. Suggestion: Please add a time-till-unmute or unban timer
Also, even though there is a ! next to muted players names in chat, there is nothing that says it in the battle chat. Maybe if a player is muted it says so at the start of every battle?
e.g. TheKrempist joined.
jacob_ninja joined.
Format: LC
Rated battle
Rule: Evasion Moves Clause
Rule: Sleep Clause
Rule: Species Clause
Rule: OHKO Clause
Rule: Moody Clause
Rule: Evasion Clause
jacob_ninja's team:
Magnemite / Murkrow / Mienfoo / Misdreavus / Porygon / Foongus
TheKrempist's team:
Munchlax / Gastly / Deino / Misdreavus / Croagunk / Gothita
Battle between TheKrempist and jacob_ninja started!
TheKrempist sent out Avril (Gothita)!
jacob_ninja sent out Magnemite!
The foe's Avril frisked its target and found one Choice Scarf!
jacob_ninja is muted.

[Zetch]

Simple short suggestion:
Make the ignore function ignore your opponent in battles also.
Countless times have I been forced to read the "insults" of these immature 12 year olds who apparently have access to coitus with my mom.

[preserve]

How about being able to see opponents ratings before the battle? This would be good in judging your opponents strengths causing you to make better choices.

[phoopes]

Originally Posted by Fat preserve

How about being able to see opponents ratings before the battle? This would be good in judging your opponents strengths causing you to make better choices.

You can use /rank <username> to find this out. For example, to look up my ranking on PS!, you would type:

/rank phoopes

Not sure if you can do this in battle window, but I know for sure it works in main chat, so you can probably do it right from the battle window as well.

[ChrisTehAwesome]

Hey guys, enjoying the system so far.

I'd like the option to manually reset your own ranking. For example, If I make a new team, it would be cool if I could just enter /reset rank or some similar command and erase my current ranking. Don't know if that's a big problem but it would really help with laddering, especially for challenges/suspect tests

[UltiMario]

Just make alts, seriously.

[Chieliee]

(about offer draw)

Originally Posted by Fat Arcticblast

This was heavily abused in the past, so whether or not it will ever exist is unknown at the moment.

What about giving mods the ability to end a match in a draw? That way it can't be abused but glitched out battles can still be ended fairly

[Level 51]

Originally Posted by Fat Chieliee

(about offer draw)

What about giving mods the ability to end a match in a draw? That way it can't be abused but glitched out battles can still be ended fairly

I'm fairly sure mods can already force draws.

[Hugendugen]

Originally Posted by Fat Level 51

I'm fairly sure mods can already force draws.

If you feel that you need a draw, just ask a & or ~ to come have a look at your battle and they can sort it out.