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 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.
There is a rating matchup system, and the source code is on the Pokemon Showdown GitHub here.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.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.
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."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.
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.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.
Yes, moderators do get punished if they are found to be overly abusive of their powersWill a moderator lose privileges if I screencap repeated cases of mod abuse?
You can use /rank <username> to find this out. For example, to look up my ranking on PS!, you would type: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.
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 fairlyThis was heavily abused in the past, so whether or not it will ever exist is unknown at the moment.
I'm fairly sure mods can already force draws.(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 fairlyThis was heavily abused in the past, so whether or not it will ever exist is unknown at the moment.
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.I'm fairly sure mods can already force draws.