Rejected Working ladder in FFA Random Battles

Status
Not open for further replies.

VisionC

Hi all!

First of all, sorry if this is in the wrong subforum, feel free to move this thread to a better place if it doesn't belong here. I looked around a bit on the guidelines and wasn't sure if this belonged here, in the "Other Metagames" subforum or maybe in the "Policy Review" subforum. I'm new on the forum, though I have been playing on Pokemon Showdown off-and-on for a few years. Also, apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere before - I looked for a while but couldn't see any other posts raising this issue.

I've recently been playing the Free-for-All Random Battles category often, and noticed that regularly, people either leave early game (if their pokemon is the first to get KO'd, if they don't feel like they got good pokemon by the randomizer, etc.), or people suddenly disappear and time out in the middle of the game. I've also had to explain to people multiple times across the past week that the format is a Free-for-All 1v1v1v1 format, and not a 2v2 Double Battles format. Both of these things aren't problematic or detrimental to the overall game, and it is definitely still possible to have some actual long and fun games with this gamemode, but in practice about half of the games you're actually just playing single Random Battles (until one of the remaining people decides that they don't want that, and leaves anyways).

I see that there is already a ladder for this gamemode in place, and that a few people have already gained some points, but it looks like the ladder is currently not in use. This results that in practice, everyone is always stuck at the bottom of the ladder, and has no way of getting away from the lower scoring players. This creates an environment where there are absolutely no stakes to losing a battle, and this means that everyone that feels like they're put at a disadvantage (either early-game if they feel like they got bad RNG with the team selection, or mid-game if they feel like they get focused on a lot by the others) can always just forfeit and start a new, 'more fun' game. This is especially frustrating when you're doing well in a game and everyone else leaves, because it feels like none of your good plays mattered.

I think a functional ladder for this category would drastically improve the playability of this gamemode, because as soon as you get out of the lower rankings you wouldn't get matched with a lot of the people leaving mid-game, or with people that don't understand the category well. I've spoken to a few others during games about this issue, and many other players of the category seem to agree that it would be nice to have a working ladder, and that it would be nice if less people randomly quit. I'm not quite sure about what the functionality of the ladder would be yet, and this is something people often ask when I mention that a ladder for the category would be nice as well. I'm sure there's a good way to implement a points system for a four-player gamemode though. (either winner-takes-all, or perhaps based on who survives longest?).

Thanks in advance for listening, and again sorry if this has already been covered,
VisionC.
 
This is already planned. However, we will not have ranks or rank-based matchmaking on any 4P ladder for some time, as it would require a complex overhaul to the ladder database (which unto itself is blocked on an even larger overhaul to our entire database).
 
Need this. Absolutely everything OP said is true.

I'm not going to make a filthy casuals / l33t proz division here at all, but the fact that so many people take the game so little seriously as OP details, makes the separation between players who are the type to quit / leave early, and those who will stick it out to the end no matter how rough the going, necessary for those who are trying to have fun at engaging battles.

Ladder is traditionally used to reward skill in play with recognition, and there's reasons for that to hold true in FFA Randbats' case as well---though of course there are natural elements outside of one's control, like being randomly ganged up on, or completely ignored as the others are too busy trying to sabotage each other in vengeance, that reduce that element of skill---but at the end of the day, FFA has acquired a casual identity and reputation that is definitely worth maintaining. It's all in good fun and should stay that way.

Nevertheless, it is a severe disruption of the fun when you frequently encounter players who: ragequit when they feel they're somehow getting bullied; or when they make a reckless gamble & subsequent error they feel has significantly reduced their chances of winning, at any point during the game, no matter the start or the end; hates their team or the first turn matchup; or any other poor reason for leaving early. Because this is supposed to be a 1v1v1v1, not a three-way or 1v1---premature forfeits defeat the entire purpose and thus effectively ruin games.

All this to say, I absolutely would support some way for those kinds of players to be filtered away from those who, again, will take their matches a little more seriously.

This could very well be a separate thread topic in itself, but it would be extremely nifty to have something like the Ignore option for chat, but for matchmaking, preventing oneself from being matched with known problem-users of this sort. More than once I've started a match, had someone else immediately forfeit, so I do, queue another, but then get matched with the same player who does the exact same thing again. I would rather never have to meet them on the ladder again. It's a waste of my time.
Mia edit: That's been suggested, and we've denied it. It would rapidly be abused to boost on the ladder, plus it's really not worth it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From the perspective of the Free-For-All council, the biggest impediment that will need to be addressed for a Free-For-All ranked ladder to be implemented is the issue of teaming abuse. It is very easy for two friends (or a single person with two instances of Showdown) to queue up for FFA at the same time and end up in the same match. From there, they can play it like a 2v1v1 rather than a FFA. Even if the other two players catch on and team up, they are still at a significant disadvantage. Currently there is no official policy against this, and it unfortunately ruins games when people do it. Fortunately right now there is no incentive to do this, so it's just a few relatively rare but obnoxious trolls. However, a ranked ladder would incentivize this kind of abuse and could lead to a proliferation of bad actors who would ruin the experience for everyone. As a result, I cannot support the introduction of a ranked ladder for Free-For-All until there is a policy for handling this kind of abuse.

Actually enforcing such a policy would be challenging. Impromptu team-ups are normal in the course of a Free-For-All match-up, and aren't necessarily evidence of anything nefarious. However, they are categorically different from planned team-ups. When two players team up naturally in the course of a Free-For-All match, it is a temporary measure to overcome another opponent who is threatening to run away with the match (for instance because they have a huge lead in remaining Pokemon, or have something really threatening on the field). It's often completely unspoken, as those players simply recognize who is the biggest threat and act accordingly. These alliances are prone to backstabs as positions shift, as everyone is playing to win. This means that such impromptu alliances are rife with mistrust, are poorly coordinated, and good players can play around them. This is very different from when two players have complete and total trust, fully coordinate their moves together, and in extreme cases can even design their teams to work with each other.

Queuing up at the same time also isn't evidence of wrong-doing. It can happen for completely incidental reasons, the most obvious being that the four people who just finished a match with each other immediately go to queue up for another. That's normal, and it's not uncommon to get 2-3 people from the previous match in the next one. Moreover, even if there are two friends who are queuing up at the same time on purpose, it's not a problem if it's done in good faith. FFA council members do this all the time to try and be matched up with each other, and if anything we are more aggressive with each other than with the other players because we know we're the biggest threats in the room and play accordingly. If you're not teaming up with your friend, queuing up at the same time isn't a problem.

For these reasons, proving that someone is team abusing would be very difficult. It will likely only be feasible to catch those who are particularly flagrant or prolific with their teaming abuse. However, we do at very minimum need to be able to get moderator assistance in those extreme cases. Currently, even if someone admits to teaming abuse there is nothing that can be done because there is no policy. And that needs to change before any ladder can be created for Free-For-All.
 
Aeonic said:
If the FFA council drafts a proposal for these rules, we (the policy admins) can review it and work with you guys on an implementation. You'll have to spearhead it though.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I think this would be our starting point:

Proposed Rules said:
In order to preserve the integrity of the Free-for-All ladder, there are rules against planned team-ups:

1. You may not search for Free-For-All ladder games with more than one account at the same time.

2. You may not make agreements with other players ahead of time to team up in the event that you are placed in the same Free-For-All ladder match.

3. You may not offer any kind of compensation or otherwise coerce other players to team up with you in a Free-For-All ladder game.

These rules do not restrict your ability to team up with other players in the course of a match. Temporary alliances are a normal part of the diplomacy of the Free-For-All format, and players are not restricted from interacting with each other within the scope of the match. Offering to Defog for someone if they don't attack you isn't compensation, threatening to attack someone if they don't stop attacking you is not coercion. Attacking the player who is in the strongest position and cooperating to take them down is just a sensible play. Where it crosses into impermissible territory is when you search for a game with the intention of helping another player win, rather than playing to win yourself.
Click to expand...

The issues that I feel are more in your ball court are the standards of evidence that will be expected of reports, and what punishments are appropriate for violators. Every situation is going to be unique, some will be more obvious with the perpetrators not making any efforts to hide their coordination, others might require multiple replays to show a pattern of behavior. If you want me to drop by on Discord or somewhere else to discuss this further, send me a PM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top