Ok another post for proof to fully convince.
Proof A.
I asked every high ranked 7 wonders player I know for smurf account name and checked winrate for smurf vs normal.
Results:
1. 86% smurf vs 81% normal
2. 83% smurf vs 80% normal
3. 84% smurf vs 78% normal
4. 78% smurf vs 75% normal
5. 76% smurf vs 68% normal
6. 73% smurf vs 72% normal
7. 78% smurf vs 76% normal
I can't write the name of the smurfs and accounts, because people might not want to be linked, because of the problem of anonimity. Sample is pretty small but it's clearly in favor of the smurf play, which is pretty sad. I am honestly shocked by the results. I didn't want it to be that bad. I'll add more samples when I get them.
Proof B.
Let's do this mathy style. This will obviously not be proper mathematic proof, but let me remind you that truthful statemates are not necceseraily provable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems
We have a game, where 3 player enter with an rating of X,Y,Z, where X>Y>Z.
In a game there are possible moves that can be taken against other players.
Let's say player Z is presented with a choice of either hurting player X or Y. Currently leading is player Y, by 2 points out of possible 50-60 to gather in a game.
What would be the correct play?
Should the rating of the player be ever a clue that (s)he should play against player X? Should (s)he always play against player Y, because he is currently winning? If (s)he plays against player X why is X being punished by his/her good rating?
Now let's look at the end of the game. Let's say both Y & Z decide to play against player X, because they thought that his/her experience is threating to enough to decide to do these measures.
Let's look at two outcomes:
1. Player Y is first, player Z is second.
Can this be considered collusion? Should you make enough friends on the ladder that you both play against the third guy?
More importantly Player X is going down the ratings. This is one of the reason any of the top stats that ufm is looking at is meaningless, because the data might be skewed and you are not talking this into account.
2. Player Y or Z is first, X is second, the other of the Y/Z is first.
This is a scenario where one of the Y/Z sacrificed too much. In this scenario X is still loosing equal points as he is gaining for a win on the ladder. Essentially still a loss, where one of the other players suicided. Do we really want to take chances with this kind of behavior for a competitive mode, which arena should be?
I can go on and on honestly and put example from the gameplay, where using domain knowledge about the game I can pinpoint where players make those decision and what impact they have. However this will take a lot of time. I'm willing to do that if the admins ask for it for condiserding this feature, as it would really make competitive scene here better. Thankfully we still have tournaments where the tanking/suiciding is much less impactful.
Thank you for reading and I hope you'll try to understand my whole point instead of trying to find the smallest crack/inconsistiency and running with it.
