Anonymise players for competitive modes: tournaments and arena

[N_Faker]

Is 'higher ranked players' of your first post synonymous with 'higher scoring player'?

'Higher scoring' as in higher ELO/arena score.

[ufm]

Is 'higher ranked players' of your first post synonymous with 'higher scoring player'?

'Higher scoring' as in higher ELO/arena score.

Well, I interpreted it to be 'higher in-game scoring player'. If it is about ratings I'm against the idea.

Also, I forgot mentioning the possibilities of strategically securing non-top places.
Players often face situations nearly or plain impossible to reach 1st.
Then the second best strategy is securing lower places like 2nd or 3rd (of course not the last place).
In my case I used to play Japanese Mahjong in a platform which penalized only the 4th player, in other words, the last place.
Because of this almost all players evidently tried to avoid the last place by any means, including the 3rd ending the game as the 3rd.

[N_Faker]

Are you saying that you are in support of kingmaking so long as it is to the detriment of higher ELO/arena score/ranking players, by "keeping a better skilled player in check"?

[ufm]

Are you saying that you are in support of kingmaking so long as it is to the detriment of higher ELO/arena score/ranking players, by "keeping a better skilled player in check"?

What is your definition of 'kingmaking'?
Kingmaking scenario is usually defined as 'a situation where a player with no chance of winning to determine who will win'.
In this sense, increasing the odds by hindering stronger player first does not count as kingmaking.
Winning odd is in favor of stronger players with the same condition, hence rated higher.

'Keeping one in check' and 'dragging one down regardless of own status' are different, especially with no midgame elimination.
To advance own rankings players still have to compete against all the other participants even if the strongest player is behind.


For example, if I were to play 4p Love Letter game with beginner A, average player B, and strong player C,
I would target C in the first round to increase my odds, unless I can deduce another player's hand much better than C's.
Thus I don't consider targeting C in this situation as a kingmaking.

Then let's assume the score to be - Me: 2 / A: 3 / B: 2 / C: 1
The priority is now on targeting A, then B, and finally C.
Leaving A unchecked means immediate loss, so targeting C first while ignoring A is a kingmaking move with no doubt.

[Wonderful Plays]

Can you provide some stats to prove this? I suspect this to be a confirmation bias.
For example, your winrate is higher compared to other players of similar ratings.
(A few 5+p games might involve in winrate difference, but still higher enough even after considering this factor)
Also, 'keeping a better player in check' should be distinguished from 'targeting someone purely out of spite'.

Yeah how would the stat like this look like?

Players at the top see constantly that players are targetting them more. I'm not saying stuff like not paying at all, that's normal. But in 3p especially I see questionable plays from my opponents with them always ending in 3rd place all the time. With how arena works, 2nd place is a loss to me when I'm at the top.

I played almost 4k games on this website. I analyzed hundred of games for my youtube channel and for my private improvement. We top players are not asking for special treatment here, just leveling the odds. Competitive multiplayer games are often using this.

Bonus benefit: it will be a little harder to collude and wintrade in arena with this.

[ufm]

Yeah how would the stat like this look like?

Players at the top see constantly that players are targetting them more. I'm not saying stuff like not paying at all, that's normal. But in 3p especially I see questionable plays from my opponents with them always ending in 3rd place all the time. With how arena works, 2nd place is a loss to me when I'm at the top.

Appealing to intuition is never a valid argument, but a fallacy. Debate should not rely on gut feeling.
You provided no detailed evidence to support your claim yet.
So basically your argument is: "We top players are being targeted more than others, because we can feel it".
Counterargument can be made easily: "I have never felt anything like that, so everything is fine".
Besides, burden of proof lies on you since you started the discussion.

How would the stats clearly proving more frequent kingmaking look like? Frankly it is hard to even imagine.
I can find a bunch of discussions for the definition of kingmaking, but have never found a stats thread for it yet.
There are too many factors to be considered (lack of skill or experience, different standards, current game positions, a mere mistake, etc.).

I played almost 4k games on this website. I analyzed hundred of games for my youtube channel and for my private improvement. We top players are not asking for special treatment here, just leveling the odds. Competitive multiplayer games are often using this.

I've seen some games enabling optional anonymization like World of Tanks or Fortnite.
But these games implemented anonymity to reduce in-game toxicity, not to level the odds.
A few specific examples and explanations would be helpful to understand this subject better.

Bonus benefit: it will be a little harder to collude and wintrade in arena with this.

Well, conspirators can check and notify their status to each other.

[Wonderful Plays]

Don't you see the irony in: please provide stats, but I have no idea how they would look?

Evidence suggests it's easier for people with fresh smurf accounts to reach higher levels than for people with established accounts.

I have some games where people tell me in chat they play against me.

My question is: why not try it for arena? (Other than it might be expensive to implement, but it really shouldn't).
Hearthstone introduced anonimisation a while back, there is an option on chess sites to do that as well.

And of course gut feeling isn't proof. But if a lot of people from the top are telling you the same think independetly, then one might start to think if they might be right.

[ufm]

Don't you see the irony in: please provide stats, but I have no idea how they would look?

Evidence suggests it's easier for people with fresh smurf accounts to reach higher levels than for people with established accounts.

I collected joined date, 7W ELO, played 7W games/victories/hits(%) from 1st~100th 7W player of current season.
3 accounts among them were created after Season 4 start, and only a single account played less than 200 games.
I can notice cream rising to the top. However where are all those fresh smurf accounts if they are easier to reach higher levels?
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
A proof is required to challenge status quo, and the burden of proof is on you as I said.

I have some games where people tell me in chat they play against me.

I don't know the reason behind that behavior so I can't say anything about it.
But if I were in that position I'd rather give a red thumb then forget them forever.
You can report those users too if the chat was personally insulting.

My question is: why not try it for arena? (Other than it might be expensive to implement, but it really shouldn't).
Hearthstone introduced anonimisation a while back, there is an option on chess sites to do that as well.

Hearthstone and chess are both 1-on-1 game. Kingmaking is not even an issue.

And of course gut feeling isn't proof. But if a lot of people from the top are telling you the same think independetly, then one might start to think if they might be right.

If anybody cannot provide logical proof, it may be a sign of groupthink.

[Wonderful Plays]

Don't you see the irony in: please provide stats, but I have no idea how they would look?

Evidence suggests it's easier for people with fresh smurf accounts to reach higher levels than for people with established accounts.

I collected joined date, 7W ELO, played 7W games/victories/hits(%) from 1st~100th 7W player of current season.
3 accounts among them were created after Season 4 start, and only a single account played less than 200 games.
I can notice cream rising to the top. However where are all those fresh smurf accounts if they are easier to reach higher levels?
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
A proof is required to challenge status quo, and the burden of proof is on you as I said.

Again: do you want me to create smurf and show? How many accounts do I need to create? If I can get to top50 faster on the smurf will that be enough?

Your data is unfortunately useless, you don't take into account how many people have smurf accounts, the premium status of the accounts etc.
7 wonders is a premium game it's harder to get games (but easier to play according to top players).

Hearthstone and chess are both 1-on-1 game. Kingmaking is not even an issue.

League of legends have anonymised draft to prevent targeting top players for years.
This is not a new feature. It is used.

If anybody cannot provide logical proof, it may be a sign of groupthink.

That's the first time I hear about independent group think

I want to try to ask the question that you don't reply: why not try it?
If the top players feel this will be good for the game why not listen to your players and try it? If it fails it can always go back, this site has tried some stuff in the past and pulled some stuff back.

Top sites and games usually try to listen to the top players for feedback. Often spending money to get the feedback.

And do you play any multiplayer games on this site with high interaction on this site?

[ufm]

Again: do you want me to create smurf and show? How many accounts do I need to create? If I can get to top50 faster on the smurf will that be enough?

Your data is unfortunately useless, you don't take into account how many people have smurf accounts, the premium status of the accounts etc.
7 wonders is a premium game it's harder to get games (but easier to play according to top players).

So you are not willing to establish any logic while willing to create a smurf?

League of legends have anonymised draft to prevent targeting top players for years.
This is not a new feature. It is used.

It is called 'metagaming', not kingmaking.

That's the first time I hear about independent group think

Where you did find 'a lot of people from the top' then? Random table chats?

I want to try to ask the question that you don't reply: why not try it?
If the top players feel this will be good for the game why not listen to your players and try it? If it fails it can always go back, this site has tried some stuff in the past and pulled some stuff back.

Top sites and games usually try to listen to the top players for feedback. Often spending money to get the feedback.

And do you play any multiplayer games on this site with high interaction on this site?

Now you're appealing to authority, and ad hominem as a bonus.
At this point this is not even a proper debate. I'm out.