Anonymise players for competitive modes: tournaments and arena

[Wonderful Plays]

I think it would be a really good idea to anonymise player ELO and names for competitive game modes. That way you eliminate some of the kingmaking and ganging up at stronger players.

It would look like:
Player 1
Player 2
Player 3

Instead of nicknames.

It could be nice option for tournaments.

[Hyeungok]

Strongly agreed! That should not compromise the beauty of the games but make games fair!

[nccc]

If u were true, they should be even BANNED from playing.

[ufm]

Seems meaningless against deliberate kingmaking.
Kingmakers can check their own game status to identify whether the opponent is a partner or not.
In fact, this might make other participants harder to detect or report kingmaking.

[N_Faker]

Seems meaningless against deliberate kingmaking.

Meaningless in regards to deliberate collusion, yes.
Meaningless in regards to deliberate kingmaking, no.

Players are incentivized to target higher scoring/ranked players whenever possible. Both to increase their own gain and to reduce their loss.

This is especially apparent in games with very high player interactivity, like Djambi.

[Hyeungok]

Seems meaningless against deliberate kingmaking.

Meaningless in regards to deliberate collusion, yes.
Meaningless in regards to deliberate kingmaking, no.

Players are incentivized to target higher scoring/ranked players whenever possible. Both to increase their own gain and to reduce their loss.

This is especially apparent in games with very high player interactivity, like Djambi.

This is exactly what Wonderful Plays and I were thinking.
We have encountered, at least in 7W, some players devote themselves to strip resources I needed, points I was looking for, etc. We are not saying these illegal but such players make games even more challenging for top players. I highly expect that anonymous rules make games fairer than before.

In fact, this might make other participants harder to detect or report kingmaking.

if we can review games with all info on accounts, I think reporting kingmaking is completely doable.

[ufm]

Seems meaningless against deliberate kingmaking.

Meaningless in regards to deliberate collusion, yes.
Meaningless in regards to deliberate kingmaking, no.

Oh, indeed.

Players are incentivized to target higher scoring/ranked players whenever possible. Both to increase their own gain and to reduce their loss.

This is especially apparent in games with very high player interactivity, like Djambi.

Initial post proposes to anonymize not only nicknames, but also rankings too.
How this can incentivize targeting higher ranked players?

This is exactly what Wonderful Plays and I were thinking.
We have encountered, at least in 7W, some players devote themselves to strip resources I needed, points I was looking for, etc. We are not saying these illegal but such players make games even more challenging for top players. I highly expect that anonymous rules make games fairer than before.

Unless playing a losing move to interrupt someone simply out of spite, keeping a better skilled player in check is a viable strategy of multiplayer games.
You are currently ranked first in 7W ELO, so no wonder you being targeted that frequently.

[Wonderful Plays]

Unless playing a losing move to interrupt someone simply out of spite, keeping a better skilled player in check is a viable strategy of multiplayer games.
You are currently ranked first in 7W ELO, so no wonder you being targeted that frequently.

But it very often is. I have it even harder, because I'm producing lots of content for 7W.

[N_Faker]

Players are incentivized to target higher scoring/ranked players whenever possible. Both to increase their own gain and to reduce their loss.

This is especially apparent in games with very high player interactivity, like Djambi.

Initial post proposes to anonymize not only nicknames, but also rankings too.
How this can incentivize targeting higher ranked players?

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Nickname anonymization and hiding player ELO would be the bare minimum for something like this to work.

[ufm]

Unless playing a losing move to interrupt someone simply out of spite, keeping a better skilled player in check is a viable strategy of multiplayer games.
You are currently ranked first in 7W ELO, so no wonder you being targeted that frequently.

But it very often is. I have it even harder, because I'm producing lots of content for 7W.

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'.

Players are incentivized to target higher scoring/ranked players whenever possible. Both to increase their own gain and to reduce their loss.

This is especially apparent in games with very high player interactivity, like Djambi.

Initial post proposes to anonymize not only nicknames, but also rankings too.
How this can incentivize targeting higher ranked players?

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Nickname anonymization and hiding player ELO would be the bare minimum for something like this to work.

Is 'higher ranked players' of your first post synonymous with 'higher scoring player'?
Then I disagree, since I think targeting more skilled player is a viable strategy as I mentioned.
Personally I don't play multiplayer games with high interactivity to avoid this, but still.
Djambi is the best example of this, ganging up on the strongest player first and then dealing with other less skilled players.
It is a game of politics after all.

In contrast, 'bad moves just to interrupt a higher ranked player' are, essentially, bad moves.
If there were a spiteful player who has nothing in mind but dragging you down, then a red thumb can solve the problem right away.