Auto Handicap

Can you please clarify what the handicaps will give to the less skilled player? Higher rate of income? More powerful ships? Less upkeep penalty? etc.

So you want to artificially make people not suck? No thanks. Learn to play the game. I don't even play pubs, but this still sounds idiotic.

You fail to grasp the concept entirely. A typical response. Handicap modes have existed in games. It's not always possible to pit 2(or more!) equally skilled players against each other, but that's what makes a good game. The few games that do have handicaps have them as a manual setting. Such handicap options are TERRIBLE in online play. The reason is because no two strangers can figure out a fair counterbalance to the skill between them. If a skilled player goes up against a new player and wins in 15 minutes, the game was both pointless for the skilled player, and simply stupid to the new player.

However in an online forum such handicaps can be figured out. Two players against each other may be difficult to figure out, but it's different when you have 2, 4, 6 players among a community of hundreds or thousands. The difference is that a computer can follow trends in a player's skill vs. other players. They can also be fair and impartial with setting a handicap, which is something you can not achieve by joining any game and hitting the check mark.

Handicaps are not needed for players of relatively equal skill. That's not the point. They are needed between players with large discrepancies of skill. Otherwise why even play the match?

Good players will still climb to the top, as they can win games both without handicaps, and against players with handicaps. Bad players will only reach as far as their ability + handicap will take them. So in the end, nothing changes other than a better medium between good and bad players.
You know what else is stupid? Players that drop out of losing games to keep a "perfect" gaming record. Under such a handicap system, those players would be considered to be "super elite". Typical players that they go up against would have large handicaps as a result. What's going to happen, is the player going to drop more games just to avoid losing against such odds, or not? It's a side benefit, but it provides an incentive for players to be honest about their losses.

I think that its actually a good idea

You fail to grasp the point, it's moronic to have a system that encourages the good players to continually make new accounts because the game adjusts to make their skill and APM worthless. Might as well play rock paper scissors if you want a "balanced" game.

Is this a suggestion for friendly games between random players or are you thinking that this would be applied to a competitive ladder?

If it's the former and it's totally optional, sure. Why not. If it's the latter... well, I hate to go comparing and contrasting the whole competitive vs. casual thing again but I can't imagine a competitive player who would be ok with this. I realize that you're trying to address the issue of disconnects which occur for the sake of preserving records and yes, those are annoying but I think it'd be just as annoying to continually run into games that are being weighted in favor of the opponent simply because the opponent has a less impressive record.

If I have a greater skill level, could I still beat some newbie with a beneficial handicap that I got matched with? Sure. But the reason I'm playing is to match my skill with other players. Making me waste more time trouncing someone that never had a chance certainly isn't doing me any favors.

Besides, if people are dropping out simply to preserve their records, I don't see how this system would change that. The records and supposed prestige would still apply, bonus or not.

I agree with Haeso. It would only encourage smurfing. If an individual cannot overcome the limiting factor of the human psyche (i.e. the game is only fun so long as I win), then they will not get better regardless of what you do.

Then make the handicap *less* than the total difference between the two levels, depending on the level of difference. For example, if Player A (who from his record of games is an obvious veteran) is facing Player B (a relative newbie with only three or four MP losses under his belt), and B would require 200% of the income that A does in order to have an even chance of winning, only give him 180% economy bonus, not the full 200%.

This ensures A will likely win unless he's sleeping at the keyboard, but B won't get trounced embarassingly and will have the opportunity to learn something as he plays.

Given Sins' complexity, I have no idea how this could be made to work, but it's an idea worth thinking about.

-- Retro

i agree and to ilistrate the point ageists it it should be possible to put gameing modes in the lobby like the speeds if but will only work if host can see the players record lol but then its up to the host and player for games where your helping someone get better not for competitive.

How do you quantify, in resource percentages, the amount that player B would need to beat player A? Why has player B been losing all of his/her games?

And more importantly, does arbitrarily bumping up their resources teach them how to get better at the game? If they end up winning because the deck was stacked 200% in their favor, have they actually learned anything about how to play on an even field?

oh yeah this will help clans with there new recruits to help train them to enjoy the game rather than the skilled one sitting there with a !!!!!OMG!!!!! sized fleets lol

with my suggestion its the host and player that decide its fairer then.

I think that's a fundamental problem of any handicapping system. Coming up with a automatic mechanism that properly measures the difference between two players' capabilities is extremely difficult. I didn't attempt to address that in my post, although the OP had some ideas, and BlackWindx's approach can be used to avoid this but doesn't work in a ladder situation where selfish better players won't use it so they can keep their ladder ranking.
That would be the challenge of ANY handicapping process at all, though. The intent of handicapping is to alter circumstances so the field FOR THAT ONE GAME is more level.

There's also the issue of pacing to worry about. Sins works because the pace of the game is pretty good. Giving one of the two players more or less resource income rate changes the pace of their gameplay.

So one option that doesn't incur these problems is to have the weaker player start with a prebuilt lab and some automatically selected Tier 0 research already completed (or even just the lab itself). This gives them an advantage without altering the overall speed of the game OR changing their overall gameplay experience. They just get the added "bonus" of having colonized their planet a bit before the other player did.

Players could then elect to give each other an "X research handicap" measure, where before they started the play, the weaker player would receive a free lab AND X completed research items in that lab's research tree. This would also give the weaker player the ability to upgrade their supply faster as well if they wanted to.

-- Retro

It's not really a matter of being selfish. The point of a ladder is to test your skill and knowledge of the game in a competitive setting. If someone's getting an advantage in that arena simply because of their unfortunate history with that screen name, then the concept of testing skill alone goes out the window.

Again, if this is a suggestion for friendly play, then fine. Whatever makes the game more fun for the people who volunteer to use it. For ladder play, in my opinion, a system like this has no place. If people with hugely different records are routinely getting matched up, then I'd argue that it's the automatching system that could stand a few tweaks.

I would agree with that in retrospect. A ladder is INTENDED to have the most skilled player float to the top, and handicapping would hurt that process.

-- Retro

The original poster suggested that an imbalance of skill results in friction for multiplayer gaming. I would suggest that is not so much the factor as an imbalance in shall we say "culture".

In my experience, the more cultured players successfully find ways to adjust the game to suit their own skill level. I can't see how an automated system would solve the issue, it's almost purely social.

In the long run, the handicap is time, in that the more cultured players simply must wait for the less cultured players to grow into the game.

In the short run, though, beer and pretzels also make a good handicap system, in that consuming them makes the culture level less relevant. Of course, please drink and eat only in moderation, and don't drink if you are under the legal age for your municipality - after all, being cultured means that you can respect what it means to be a good citizen!

Wether it is a good idea or not, let's be honest: it will never happen - Period.

The system, in a way, would figure that out for you. If a player has a bonus, and then starts winning because of that bonus, then the bonus is too high, so the bonus goes down. The player then starts losing because they aren't as good, so the bonus goes back up again. Wow, the problem solves itself. In a massive online community, it is easy to figure out the trend with how players fare against each other at different skill levels. Eventually, the system will reach a balance where it can reasonably determine how 2 complete strangers would fare against each other, and set a fair handicap accordingly.

The most obvious ways to handicap a game is with resources and the strength of ships. Only the bad player gets the benefit, the worst a good player can have is 100% natural strength.
Which is EXACTLY 100% what happens. Good players win without handicap, and win against handicapped bad players. Bad players win with handicap, then lose without the handicap, and fall back down. Hasn't that been figured out yet?

You're STILL GOING TO WIN against a weaker player with a handicap, simply because you are better than them. That's not a shocking revelation by any stretch of the imagination. The only difference is that it's no longer a steamroll, you actually have to try for it. If you're a good player, that's not going to be a problem.
You can't possibly believe that such a system would be the ONLY system around. If you want a competitive setting, you play with players at your skill level. Those games have no handicap. Problem solved. The auto handicap will only work for games that use it, and only for players with skill levels so separate that the game is a waste of time without it.
A player with no record has no handicap. It is only after they establish a winning or losing streak that the handicap starts to fill in, to match their skill level against the rest. How is a player going to smurf that, again? If you constantly make new accounts you're doing nothing but wasting your time. If you deliberately lose games just to keep your handicap high, your lousy gaming record will speak for your lousy skill.

If that's the case, then what is this suggestion meant to accomplish? Then all this does is ensure that the higher-tier player has to waste more time trouncing the inexperienced player. Maybe you're making it more interesting for the newbie (though, having to spend more time waiting for inevitable grinding into the dirt isn't much of a boost to enjoyment) but you're doing it at the high-tier player's expense. Once again, if players want to do this in an unranked friendly game, then they're more than welcome to but ranked ladder games are no place for a crutch. Especially one that you're suggesting is unlikely to change the outcome at all.

Philisophically, I don't understand why you think players with a low rank 'should' have a chance against those of a higher tier in a ranked setting. If you want to have a chance against a player who's better than you, practice. Get better. It's a course of action that's already available to everyone.

Anyway, anything else I say would just be repititious so I'll just submit that I wouldn't touch a ranking system with this mechanic and be on my way.

The thing I don't like about on-line real-time ranked ladders is that nowadays they really screw up the connection if you play behind a router. World In Conflict, I am talking to you!

It's possible to find work-arounds for the issue, but sometimes it takes a very long time to find just the right fix.

Handicaps have been used in bowling leagues successfully for a long time. They would work in Sins too, especially team play. One problem might be "sandbagging" though; players deliberately play poorly at the start of a league to get a high handicap.

Hey, guess what, a handicapping system that only takes how many loses one side has won't work anyway.

Example: Player A is awful, he has lost 10 games, so he has a -10 handicap

Example: Player B is the best player in the game, he has won 50 games lost 2, he has +48

in your system player A would get lets say double resources


Example2: Player C is awful too, he has lost 10 games, so he has a -10 handicap.

Example2: Player D is decent, he has won 1 game and lost 0, that gives him a +1.

In your system Playey C would get double resources.


My examples by proxy prove you're an idiot. Stop breathing my air. Your arrogance knows no bounds, you act like you know more than us, and we're just shooting down a great idea for no reason. When guess what, I know I have and I bet he has as well, I've actually seen games with handicaps, and it sucks. The best players just make smurfs over and over and just grief noobs because they can't play at all without their handicap. So again, stop acting like you know what the **** you're talking about when clearly you don't.

And honestly, if you try and suggest tying it to accounts and limiting it to one Nickname per, I'm just gonna laugh at you for opening that can of worms and let someone else explain why that's retarded.

(Hint: The way you suggested with only one side of the scale mattering means it doesn't work, but if both sides matter you end up with Player D being Player B's smurf account, so again. Idiot, my air, stop breathing it. Stupid mouth breathing idiots acting like they know what they're talking about piss me off.)

You suggest you want a handicapping system, yet you don't even know how to implement one, let alone give decent suggestions for it.

I don't even know why I humor these pointless posts, they'll never happen, maybe I just enjoy making people look stupid? Yeah, I do. Does that make me a bad person? Probably.

So anyway, enjoy your non-existent handicap that won't even work much less be implemented. I'll be playing age of Conan as this game dies while I wait for SCII and Demigod.

Wow. Haeso just... snapped. Unfortunately, the only real argument he has is that players would smurf the system. Did he bring any possible solutions to the table? No.

Seriously, the amount of dented egos coming up out of the woodwork is atrocious. I don't care how you justify how noob stomping is fun. If a good player is beaten by a handicapped opponent, he is NOT going to suddenly be scarred and admonished by the gaming community for life. It's a god damn GAME, get over it. I'm not here to talk about that.

I'm here to talk about what modern technology can do for a handicap system that has remained undeveloped in gaming for over a dozen years. Traditionally, players would meet together, look at their gaming history against each other, and set a handicap setting that they feel is fair. This works for a bit with players that have played often and know each other. But what about players that don't? You can't seriously expect two complete strangers to know how to set a handicap between them, that is if they want one. Using an online community, there are plenty of statistics to weigh how players fare agounst each other.

Yes, how new players work into the system is important. A player should not be seeing immediate benefits as the result of making a new account. One possible solution is to default new players the benefits of an excellent player. The first few games are played on an even field, to see how a player would fit in the community.

Of course, there needs to be ways to defend against idiots with no other purpose in life than to be poison. However, such players are NOT in the majority. It's going to be a small segment of players, and they are going to be relying on an obvious playing pattern to achieve their ends. That means the players are going to see it happening, and they will know who is doing what. Some people have mentioned that they know how firsthand the common tactics and strategy used by a smurfing player. Unfortunately they don't actually wish to post what they know.

If you don't like it Haeso, don't use it, and keep your ego happy. But watch your mouth.
Philosophically, it's a GAME that people play for FUN. If you don't find it to be FUN:
A) Don't use it.
Play against players of your own skill level.
Problem solved.

One of the things that I find 'fun' about ladder play is playing on a level field and I know I'm not alone on this one. I'm interested in playing against other people. Not overcoming their handicaps.



So are you suggesting an alternate competitive ladder just for people who want to waste time fighting uphill battles using a system that, in your mind, won't change the outcome of a game?



Instead of throwing a convoluted system like this into a competitive ladder, wouldn't it make much more sense to simply take your own advice? Or, if automatching is making that difficult, again, lobby for a better automatching system. On a competitive scale, that would be a much more effective use for 'modern technology' and I'd wager, much more likely to actually happen.

And hey, were you listening? Handicaps are exploitable and make noob stomping even worse. And no other argument? Okay, first off, short of this NEVER even having a chance at happening, lets go into why handicaps are a terrible, terrible idea in comparison to a ladder/automatch.

Automatch takes people with similar win/loss puts them together, if not enough people are on then you get a bad matchup, it happens. That's the only drawback, this does several things though

A: It avoids changing gameplay

B: It's server side coding they can get someone else to do instead of wasting dev time on balancing a HORRIBLE idea.

C: It promotes and rewards doing well by moving you up on the ladder and giving you matches against better players. Regardless of how YOU view a handicapping system, maybe you just spend too much time on the awful end of it getting handicaps because you suck, then sure you won't understand. All of the good players will view a handicap system as an artificial device stripping them of their advantages which will

A: either give them a chance to lose games, or

B: Make them waste more time per game to inevitably stomp the hell out of the noob.

Both of which make the good players create new account periodically to avoid in the sake of fun. I shouldn't have to spend an hour killing some first timer on ICO, much less two hours after he loses a bunch of games. I should thoroughly stomp on him if he joins my game foolishly.

And honestly, first game I lose to some noob because this "Great idea" is still being balanced is the day I uninstall sins.

I ask people with low amounts of games if they're new, and if they say yes I ask them to leave, if they don't I walk all over them. Not my problem, and a handicap will do nothing but hinder me. All it does is give this noob a longer replay to watch, which won't matter because he can't just copy my strategy if he has some sort of % modifier or extra building at the start.

And LOL, making the new guys start with massive handicaps... That's going to turn more people off than you have ANY idea about.

And honestly? I'll be banned from the forums long before I watch my mouth, we've been ignored enough, if the devs and other people with admin on the forums really want to ban me, hey guess what. That'll be the first time they've even acknowledged me regardless of the way I bring things up I do bring up valid points and start discussions on balance.

So as I've said in the other thread I made, at this point the game doesn't have much time, it has no modability without real dev tools short of skin changes and numerical value changes. It's poorly balanced and only got worse as patches happened. The community as a whole is quickly dying as well.

So in conclusion, go to hell, your idea sucks, the game's dying anyway, give it up.