ENT Gaming

Hello,

First of all, thanks for hosting risk devo <3. I'm opening this topic to give a few suggestions about that game, to improve players' experience !

- I am not sure if you are aware that risk devo stats are fucked for three reasons :

1) The way ELO points are calculated is very bad. I am not a specialist of ELO systems, but at the moment I feel like points are randomly given in first 3 games and then you can't earn/lose any points.

2) In a few games (about 10%), the recorded winner is the wrong player (and it's not because he left before the game ended). I am not sure why and when that bug occurs but I think it's more likely to happen when the winner is the only player in the game when it ends.

3) Stats should be reset more often ! (Every month, or every 2 months)

Points 1) and 3) are not a real problem because we have a website http://riskdevolution.com/ now, which records all games from entgaming.net and has a proper ranking (even though it could be improved). But because of 2), quite a lot of games are recorded as loses instead of wins for winners :/.

- And the second problem is related to that topic : viewtopic.php?f=43&t=83977&p=339069&hilit=risk+rules#p336510
It was about the fact that preteamers are no longer banned by ent gaming and the reasons were that it costs too much time to review replays / it's sometimes hard to see the difference between teamers and preteamers.
However the fact that preteamers can't be banned annoys a lot of risk players :/. That's why I wanted to know if you would recruit a "special" moderator who would review only preteamers ban requests? I know a few reliable guys, knowing risk well, who would do that job!
(I know that suggestion might seem a bit weird but I think it could be a good solution)

Sappy-Chan wrote:if you would recruit a "special" moderator who would review only preteamers ban requests?

No. Become part of the community, take care of other things than just one specific field and you are more than welcome.

Have you got an ELO formula we can apply?

2) In a few games (about 10%), the recorded winner is the wrong player (and it's not because he left before the game ended). I am not sure why and when that bug occurs but I think it's more likely to happen when the winner is the only player in the game when it ends.

Did you ask the map developer about this?

aRt)Y wrote:No. Become part of the community, take care of other things than just one specific field and you are more than welcome.

But would you change the rules so preteaming is bannable? I don't mind taking part of the community, but risk is the only game I really play and the only one I am really interested in.

aRt)Y wrote:Have you got an ELO formula we can apply?

ELO formula was designed for 1v1 chess games and I think it can't be applied to RIsk FFA for several reasons (main ones are that it's... FFA and not 1v1, and the fact that the win is not 100% based on the skill : there is a "luck" parameter). I found a few other systems that might work for FFA games, here is a link : http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/pro ... tails.aspx. If you need more details I can try to give all the formulas.

aRt)Y wrote:Did you ask the map developer about this?

I really doubt the bug comes from the map because the true winner is always displayed (either "no winner was found" when it's a draw, or just the winner). Sadly the mapmaker has been inactive for years now, and I can't contact him.

Sappy-Chan wrote:

aRt)Y wrote:No. Become part of the community, take care of other things than just one specific field and you are more than welcome.

But would you change the rules so preteaming is bannable? I don't mind taking part of the community, but risk is the only game I really play and the only one I am really interested in.

What aRt)Y is saying that all ENT moderators are capable of handling more than 1 gaming field. You don't have to ''play'' the game or specialize in it personally to have knowledge of it's rules. For example -

I'm an Island Defense Moderator. I consider myself to be the only active Island Defense Moderator/Staff at this time besides aRt)Y himself. I love that game and played it for years now. Am I officially an Island Defense Moderator? No. I'm an ENT Moderator which applies to all ENT games. I can review any game category like just recently I have reviewed civilization wars and battleships and haven't played a single game in my life.

Also, if you'd like for preteaming to be ban-able here at ENT, I would recommend either making a separate suggestion or providing some reasons here.
-Why should it be ban-able?
-What impact does preteaming have on the game?
-Is it a frequent enough problem to be considered for a rule?

Sappy-Chan wrote:

aRt)Y wrote:Have you got an ELO formula we can apply?

ELO formula was designed for 1v1 chess games and I think it can't be applied to RIsk FFA for several reasons (main ones are that it's... FFA and not 1v1, and the fact that the win is not 100% based on the skill : there is a "luck" parameter). I found a few other systems that might work for FFA games, here is a link : http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/pro ... tails.aspx. If you need more details I can try to give all the formulas.

Would like to just add - based on what I see from statistics that [ENT] Risk Devolution is the lowest populated autohosted game on ENT. Generally for a game to have stats like w/l and an ELO system added - perhaps should hold a little more activity?

Would you consider adding stats to bring more players back to the game? Would it be more beneficial on the community or more harmful?

Av1oN wrote:Also, if you'd like for preteaming to be ban-able here at ENT, I would recommend either making a separate suggestion or providing some reasons here.
-Why should it be ban-able?
-What impact does preteaming have on the game?
-Is it a frequent enough problem to be considered for a rule?

We've already made a thread about that. I linked it in my first post : viewtopic.php?f=43&t=83977&p=339069&hilit=risk+rules#p336510. I think we showed that preteamers ruin ffa games and should be banned. But entgaming won't ban them because it takes too much time to review replays and because you need to know the game well to determine if 2 players are teaming or preteaming.

Av1oN wrote:Would like to just add - based on what I see from statistics that [ENT] Risk Devolution is the lowest populated autohosted game on ENT. Generally for a game to have stats like w/l and an ELO system added - perhaps should hold a little more activity?

Would you consider adding stats to bring more players back to the game? Would it be more beneficial on the community or more harmful?

Well I don't have any statistics but I really doubt risk is the lowest populated game. I see a lot of ent games that never start. There are tens of risk games everyday. Of course risk is less popular than legion td or dota, but I think making a proper ranking makes sense. All players I know like ranking systems and find it fun.

Sappy-Chan wrote:We've already made a thread about that. I linked it in my first post : viewtopic.php?f=43&t=83977&p=339069&hilit=risk+rules#p336510. I think we showed that preteamers ruin ffa games and should be banned. But entgaming won't ban them because it takes too much time to review replays and because you need to know the game well to determine if 2 players are teaming or preteaming.

nabo. wrote: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.

Basically sums up the discussion in the link you've provided. ENT cannot properly moderate pre-teaming due to the nature of the game design. It would take too much time for us to prove solid hard preteaming on a case-by-case basis.

Also if I may provide some personal insight into the way I see it - It's FFA and green + red decide to attack me (blue), then yellow and perhaps orange before breaking this unspoken alliance and just attacking eachother so would this prove preteaming really? I mean it's just the nature of the game in which ENT moderation can't ban for. It can happen in every game and I'm honestly sure it does in some form or another.

Now speaking on a moderating type of view - We would have to..
1. See how frequently red + green play. This involves watching the entire replay which sometimes go up to 2h+
2. Find any evidence via the chatlogs also including if they talk to each-other or to others for each-other etc.
3. Actually see if what they do hurts the over-all flow of gameplay. (Ex: red + green consistently attack everyone side by side over the course of the entire game and just going undefeated as a duo) which can easily be mistaken for just mere FFA gameplay styles and so forth.
4. Even if by completing the 3 steps above - can we really ban if people retaliate on the same action? What if triple alliances are formed just for the sake against them then it just turns into a mess and it'll just cause chain reactions leading to unnecessary messes in an already low-populated game.

Basically, too many steps and too many gray areas to actually prove solid hard pre-teaming and honestly - I've only ever seen maybe 5 of these reported in my 2 years of moderating so is that big of an issue to begin with? Are there others in the community of Risk Devo who holds the exact same view and necessity for this rule as you do?

The management has summed this up to be perfectly honest. As stated in the beginning.

Sappy-Chan wrote:Well I don't have any statistics but I really doubt risk is the lowest populated game. I see a lot of ent games that never start. There are tens of risk games everyday. Of course risk is less popular than legion td or dota, but I think making a proper ranking makes sense. All players I know like ranking systems and find it fun.

Following the idea that Risk Devo can actually hold a stable ELO formula considering it's basically a 12 person brawl should the game fill to that length - Can you provide more insight into this? Also, the link in which you pasted in the response to aRt)Y did not work.

Also to follow up on something aRt)Y himself said in the ''Risk Rules'' topic - It is currently the lowest autohosted game as of now and hasn't changed from that response.

@av1on Please don't take this the wrong way, but seriously your answers almost seems insulting, the game you play and describe, yes it's the nature of the game to team ingame and it happens every game it needs to happen to stop someone from winning. But something that very few people can spot is the diffrent between teaming and pre teaming, and ever since we got a decent ranked risk site with ffa league, the preteaming is happening way to much and ruins way to many games. The sad part is that it's very few guys that pre teams, but since you guys wont ban them, they keep ruining games and make new accounts just to ruin the game for others, real low life kids. All we're asking for is that you let one of the leaders in the risk community just watch the replays of the reports for risk pre teaming, they don't have to be a mod on this site, they can just watch the replays, and inform you guys if it's pre team or just regular team, is that really to much to ask for? Risk and wc3 has been dying for years, and you guys have the chance to help risk, and i truly hope you will. Like i said, there aren't that many diffrent pre teamers, but since they don't get banned they keep ruining games. Also if people see that pre teamers gets banned they might actually stop.. There are several leaders in the risk community that feels like this, but every time someone makes a post about this or something related to this, you guys just shut them down.. anyways don't take this the wrong way, i love ENT and what it has done for wc3. Also if no one of you has played risk for years/been in a risk community, it's pretty much impossible for you to detect if it's pre team or normal team. Also the people in the risk community remembers the names and people that pre team and they are tagged red in the risk community so we can keep an eye on them.

@Memphis26 can you tell me whats the main difference between preteaming and teaming from start except the trust issue. Since when i team/peace from start im 100% his buddy, If he gets attacked ill help him and etc.

@Stiff_Maistar Here is a thread dealing with that topic : viewtopic.php?f=43&t=83977&p=339069&hilit=risk+rules#p336510
Little summary : When you are teaming, your alliance will be broken at some point because there is only 1 winner. Each player in the alliance play for his individual win. When you are preteaming, you are playing for your team to win, not for your own win. That makes the ffa game unfair for all players who are not preteaming.

Basically, too many steps and too many gray areas to actually prove solid hard pre-teaming and honestly - I've only ever seen maybe 5 of these reported in my 2 years of moderating so is that big of an issue to begin with? Are there others in the community of Risk Devo who holds the exact same view and necessity for this rule as you do?

The management has summed this up to be perfectly honest. As stated in the beginning.

That's why i proposed my help (or another risker's help) to review replays. There are some players in the risk community who can identify preteamers pretty quickly (and I think I could do that).
Plus preteamers really ruin games. When you say you haven't seen many preteamers, I feel like you haven't play risk much. There are preteamers in about half the games.

Following the idea that Risk Devo can actually hold a stable ELO formula considering it's basically a 12 person brawl should the game fill to that length - Can you provide more insight into this? Also, the link in which you pasted in the response to aRt)Y did not work.

Well actually I don't really care if you make an ELO formula for risk because we already have a website with a league (cf. my first post). But implementing such an ELO formula wouldn't take much time for you. Thus I don't see why you are so reluctant.
And as I said, the main problem is that 10% of the games get a wrong winner.
(Sorry about the link : pretty weird that they deleted it. It was just a few formulas to make a league for ffa games. It's not really important : making a proper ELO system is not so hard)

Sappy-Chan wrote:@Stiff_Maistar Here is a thread dealing with that topic : viewtopic.php?f=43&t=83977&p=339069&hilit=risk+rules#p336510
Little summary : When you are teaming, your alliance will be broken at some point because there is only 1 winner. Each player in the alliance play for his individual win. When you are preteaming, you are playing for your team to win, not for your own win. That makes the ffa game unfair for all players who are not preteaming.

And its here the gray areas comes in because I play to play the game and not to win it. So when i peace a player from start and we are the only once left ill leave and give him the win if he cares about stats, even tho if im much bigger then him and could win it if i continued. So its not preteaming but it has the same look as preteaming.

Tl;dr It's not possible to properly review a risk pre-team case without gray ares getting in the way.

As stated before, ENT does not support moderation to a specific gaming field. If you wish to become a part of our staff and hold the task of reviewing Risk prior to other game(s), then you are welcome to work to that position and meet our criteria.

But as of now on ENT, just so we're clear, pre-teaming is acceptable and nabo. has stated the ENT staff will not moderate for it. If you wish for that to change, I will now suggest that it made in a new + separate topic as this one has steered past it's initial suggestion.

Back on-to the point of this topic -
I still don't feel adding stats/ELO to ENT87 (Risk Devolution Bot) would do much of a difference. Perhaps you can continue providing reasons as to why it should be added? I'd also like to see some more community support from it. (Ex - you said you know people whom would enjoy it, maybe they can step forward on it?)

Again, you guys just assume stuff, sadl'y ur clueless and you keep proving it over and over again.(Really im not sure if you're trolling with these answers lol) Stiff maister, what ur describing, like you say can look like a preteam, but the guys that know the game can clearly see that ur just throwing away the game. You can also search player history, how much they play together, where they're from, the chat, we can spot preteamers 10/10 cases. i'm pretty sure ENT knows that, sadly they dont give a shit which is fine, but it almost seems like they're trolling us with the answers we get. They just keep repeating the same answers like some bot, anyways it's fine i wont bother it's impossible to communicate with these guys. All we wanted was some normal answers to sappy-chans questions. The fact that they keep saying shit about how to detect if its pre team or normal team, it's insulting, but as always ent thinks they know better than the community that actually plays the game xD hillarious. Anyway keep up the good work ENT xD

Tl;dr It's not possible to properly review a risk pre-team case without gray ares getting in the way.

As we repeated several times, an experimented risk player can see the difference. Even someone who knows nothing about risk could spot half the premates, just by checking their games and how often they play together/ruin games together. Most preteamers are recidivists and only a few make fake accounts (but even them can be spotted).

As stated before, ENT does not support moderation to a specific gaming field. If you wish to become a part of our staff and hold the task of reviewing Risk prior to other game(s), then you are welcome to work to that position and meet our criteria.

We suggested to help you without being moderators. I understand that you don't want external players giving you tips because it's not how your organisation is working.

But as of now on ENT, just so we're clear, pre-teaming is acceptable and nabo. has stated the ENT staff will not moderate for it. If you wish for that to change, I will now suggest that it made in a new + separate topic as this one has steered past it's initial suggestion.

This is hilarous (and I feel like you're trolling). We actually made a topic for it a few months ago. We explained why preteaming should be banned with clear arguments. Quite a few players came and posted to support us. And you just closed it saying "it's too hard to review it" and refusing our help .
Again, I understand we won't be moderator for free/we need to apply for it. But in your rules we need minimum 25 messages for it/being active/... Most risk players I know don't even have an antgaming account. That's why we suggested we could help you without being moderators. You also refused.

Back on-to the point of this topic -
I still don't feel adding stats/ELO to ENT87 (Risk Devolution Bot) would do much of a difference.

As I said thrice now, adding ELO system is not really needed because we already have one (even though I don't understand why you wouldn't add one : it wouldn't take much time).
The main problem is that 10% of the games get a wrong winner.

Perhaps you can continue providing reasons as to why it should be added?

- Making it is really not hard (and if you want us to provide you the formulas, we can)
- All the players I know enjoy it
- It increases activity (players are more involved when there's a competition)
- Risk is a game compatible with ranking systems

I'd also like to see some more community support from it. (Ex - you said you know people whom would enjoy it, maybe they can step forward on it?)

Do they really need to make an entgaming account to post "Yeah, I want it !!" ? All players in my clan enjoy it and tens of them are active.

Let's say you are a politician, you are the prime minister (Admin) of a country and you have a bunch of other politicians (Moderators) around you helping you do work. You maybe have been plater before you started politics, your colleagues maybe didn't have a fulltime job before they started politics. One might be a entertainer, comedian, actor/actress or just a TV personality. There might be a farmer amongs you or a fisherman. You people make decisions for everyone in the country. But let us add a twist, the population is rising and you need more residents for the new population, you find a suitiable place for the new residents and start the construction. Months later, the construction is done and all the houses are standing where they are suppose to. But did you do all the work? No ofcourse not, you sit in office having no idea how any of the stuff you just had built were made. Thats cause it is not your specialty, it's someone elses specialty. All you did was to say that it had to be done, you might not even have made the conclusion that the houses were needed. Someone else did that for you, you don't deal in areas you don't know how to make or maintain. What you do is to make sure that the country is not falling apart, you make sure that the people under you are doing their jobs and that the majority of the popurlation is alive and well. But you have other people below you doing the mainwork cause that is their specialty.

Do you understand where I am going with this? You are the one providing the bots, making sure your staff is doing work and that the players are having a good time. That doesn't mean you yourself has to do all the work yourself, other people in their specialty do their work. A fisherman doesn't review a platers work and judge him. An actor doesn't review how the farmer does his farming.

As Sappy said, you don't have to do all the work, we players in the Community do the work. We are asking for ourselves to do our work, not for you to do our work. The only thing we ask for is your permission! You are noto just shutting down 1 person when you say no, you shut down a whole community!

//TimBa

You say we are ignorant by giving you the same responses over and over again. I dont even deny that the current staff members might not be the most qualified for risk dev requests.
However, what you should finally get is that we wont give you any special treatment. ENT consists of many communities and not just risk dev. If you wanna be a mod, we expsct more than just your isolated view of a risk dev community member.

As I said at the beginning, you are more than welcome to apply. Ignoring our requirements is ignorant tho, too. :|