ENT Gaming

As per this thread: viewtopic.php?p=463424#p463424

Zeratul said we should post a suggestion to change the rules. Very well; temporarily ban clear pre-teamers.

The RISK community is understandably overlooked on these forums so we've been struggling with toxicity, but when I join a LTD the ban system is strict and efficient. We have none of this - our games are often full of players coming together to change the outcome of a game (as well as some who act alone to try 'throw' a game, but that's not the purpose of this suggestion). The RISK hosted on ENT is in FFA mode. Teaming of some sort is inevitable, but when it's pre-determined, deliberate and consistent, it's no longer fun to compete against. As a small community the help of ENT to enforce some sort of structure would be greatly appreciated.

In terms of enforcement, players who play together constantly are easily identifiable. They're often on the same server, leave at the same time and in recent cases are from the same countries. We would never expect to prevent friends playing together, but if they're not deliberately pre-teaming to get the win for one of them, they won't be reported in the first place.

aRt)Y wrote:How would you suggest for us to check for pre-teaming? It has been rarely occurring and we simply dont have the human resources to spend on such long games for something that minor.

nabo. wrote:
Hello,

Since Risk is a ffa, we were fine banning "obvious" cases of pre-teaming. However, we have also seen gray areas when looking at replays and due to the nature of the game's design and being an open online versus game, it is not so easy for the "ffa" concept to be clear cut.

If the ban requester were to specifically provide enough timestamps and specific examples on their ban request, it would make things easier, however we have seen requests that are too general and thus becoming too time consuming for us to check most of the replays.

In my opinion, Tisk being played online is not easy and needs a better game design which the old devs lack.

I do assume that there are quite many friends playing Risk together and somewhat always pre-teaming.

I personally think Risk is more suited as a priv hosted game. Although I understand your reasons for stating that preteaming should be bannable, ENT has decided we will no longer moderate it.

As I dont see further comments to Arty's questions, topic is archived.

Source: viewtopic.php?f=43&t=83977&p=345041&hilit=pre#p345041

Comment on itand why it should be changed ?

Well reading that my first thoughts are the online aspects of Risk Devolution are functional; it's a real-time strategy that involves complicated diplomacy, meaning the online multiplayer scene is ideal.

We actually have a dedicated site that has a Mod team reviewing instances like this, however, the most we can do is label a pre-teamer as such on the site rather than do anything constructive about it: http://riskdevolution.com/report.php

With future ban requests, we could link the reports from this site itself, along with sufficient evidence. Our members won't expect a replay review - requests that are too general could just be denied rather than investigated. I think the combination of these things would reduce the workload for ENT mods whilst bringing about a bit more discipline in our little community.

Like nabo said, we would strive to "specifically provide enough timestamps and specific examples".

the risk community needs some stability. letting people do whatever they feel like whenever they feel like has cost us a lot of good players who get frustrated at the lack of respect we used to have among ourselves. 2 rules could change that. as arker said, the more important one is ending preteaming.

I don't play that map although I have a good idea of what it's like. Proving that people are teaming on purpose in a ffa game is nearly impossible (when they're not literally called "preteamer').

Honestly, I don't think that map should have player stats. Removing it would also remove the incentive for doing this. The elo system is meant for games where you win 50% of the time on average either way, so it's not like it brings much.

Sylvanas wrote:Proving that people are teaming on purpose in a ffa game is nearly impossible (when they're not literally called "preteamer')

I explained this in my posts - we can prove deliberate, predetermined and consistent teaming very easily. This is what pre-teaming concerns, and is done through specific examples, our report feature, and timestamps. "Pre-teamer" is exactly the purpose of this suggestion, not "teaming". I thought I'd made this clear.

Sylvanas wrote:I don't think that map should have player stats. Removing it would also remove the incentive for doing this. The elo system is meant for games where you win 50% of the time on average.

There is no "ELO system" outside of one we've arbitrarily created, and it's certainly not an incentive for pre-teaming. The incentive is to gain an advantage and abuse the FFA format, not climb the ladder. I feel like you need to be in the community and play the map a bit more to get a better understanding. The ELO system is also nothing to do with the purpose of this suggestion.

This comment has gone off on a tangent. Can someone please address the suggestion itself?

our mods will be the ones doing all the work, watching replays, putting together detailed evidence and linking from our website. all you have to do is review it, eventually we can build some trust here and you will see our mods are on point. we dont want anyone banned, but things have gotten bad recently and we need some stability.

Arker wrote:There is no "ELO system" outside of one we've arbitrarily created, and it's certainly not an incentive for pre-teaming. The incentive is to gain an advantage and abuse the FFA format, not climb the ladder. I feel like you need to be in the community and play the map a bit more to get a better understanding. The ELO system is also nothing to do with the purpose of this suggestion.

This comment has gone off on a tangent. Can someone please address the suggestion itself?

I went to the game this thread mentioned and I see elo changes and player stats. You say people are continuously joining games together and teaming with the same accounts, but if you guys don't care about stats, why couldn't they just do the same thing while constantly switching accounts instead? Or if people do care, bring in a "winning" account and a constantly changing smurf helper account that teams with the first one and lets him win at the end? I don't see how banning the obvious teamers would do anything considering how easy it would be to hide it if need be.

This brings me back to thinking this wouldn't do anything unless offenders could be identified reliably. How do you suggest to prove two people are in a pre-arranged team? Let's say two people are near each other and never hurt each other until everyone else is dead. Does it necessarily mean they agreed to it from the start? Couldn't they just spontaneously choose not to antagonize each other to better deal with their other threats? As a general rule, there's no better way to lose a ffa game than to provoke everyone near you into targeting you at once.

I'm sorry if there's anything about the situation I'm not getting, but as it is I'm not seeing how any of this would work.

Sylvanas wrote:

Arker wrote:There is no "ELO system" outside of one we've arbitrarily created, and it's certainly not an incentive for pre-teaming. The incentive is to gain an advantage and abuse the FFA format, not climb the ladder. I feel like you need to be in the community and play the map a bit more to get a better understanding. The ELO system is also nothing to do with the purpose of this suggestion.

This comment has gone off on a tangent. Can someone please address the suggestion itself?

I went to the game this thread mentioned and I see elo changes and player stats. You say people are continuously joining games together and teaming with the same accounts, but if you guys don't care about stats, why couldn't they just do the same thing while constantly switching accounts instead? Or if people do care, bring in a "winning" account and a constantly changing smurf helper account that teams with the first one and lets him win at the end? I don't see how banning the obvious teamers would do anything considering how easy it would be to hide it if need be.

This brings me back to thinking this wouldn't do anything unless offenders could be identified reliably. How do you suggest to prove two people are in a pre-arranged team? Let's say two people are near each other and never hurt each other until everyone else is dead. Does it necessarily mean they agreed to it from the start? Couldn't they just spontaneously choose not to antagonize each other to better deal with their other threats? As a general rule, there's no better way to lose a ffa game than to provoke everyone near you into targeting you at once.

I'm sorry if there's anything about the situation I'm not getting, but as it is I'm not seeing how any of this would work.

Good point.

Jabba41 wrote:

aRt)Y wrote:How would you suggest for us to check for pre-teaming? It has been rarely occurring and we simply dont have the human resources to spend on such long games for something that minor.

I am ready to help with this since i got allot of free time .
and ofc the ban wont be the first thing they get we will be coordinating with our website moderators on : http://www.riskdevolution.com/
who will be also checking the replays to mark them .
So the replay will be checked twice and we going to have many opinions on it before we ban them , and i am sure this going to improve our community .

Sylvanas wrote:I don't play that map although I have a good idea of what it's like. Proving that people are teaming on purpose in a ffa game is nearly impossible (when they're not literally called "preteamer').

Honestly, I don't think that map should have player stats. Removing it would also remove the incentive for doing this. The elo system is meant for games where you win 50% of the time on average either way, so it's not like it brings much.

well honestly the elo system is keep this ffa game alive ill take an example my self : if there weren't a score or an elo system i wouldn't play it at all there's no fun in it .
Throwing game - forfeiting - ruining games - preteaming will increase if there werent an elo system .

Well, the only ones you might be able to prove that are actually pre-teaming (besides the obvious ones that admit to do so, and their actions are coherent with that), are those you're gonna have to get at least 2-3 replays (at least) of them playing together, and having actions that support pre-teaming.

Speaking by experience (as an ex moderator), risk community has always been lazy in what comes to reporting properly (replays, timestamps, etc. - even the latest brqs keep showing that: viewtopic.php?p=463424#p463424 and viewtopic.php?f=8&t=119319 for example), so unless you guys show commitment to posting proper ban requests (with clear evidence/timestamps of the violated rule, may it be game ruin, throwing, or pre-teaming if it gets approved), the ban requests will continue to be denied, by ENT moderators, without proper evidence

Offtopic: The chat going on, on the mentioned site is rather ... amusing

i didnt link you the site to read the chat , i did link the site to show you that we are doing something but marking people doesnt really harm anyone
and ofc we wont ban anyone with no clear proof or at least 2-3 replays which we are already doing this to mark them .

Hello
I'm just reacting to this subject because arker and Nod want rules that they don't apply themselves
Here is what they think of ENT Mod found on their website:

https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=985432compilation.png

i am sorry they disrespected ENT .
they are just mad , hopefully this wont affect our relation with You guys .