NetPlay: Speed Settings do not work when using Rated-Rule Settings

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Create a new multiplayer room on NetPlay.
2. Choose Rated-Rule STANDARD-ZERO (in Rated-Rule Settings Tab).
3. Choose non-default Speed Settings, e.g. 20G (Gravity=20, G-MAX=1).

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Game does not play with 20G but normal gravity. When the first entry in the 
rated-rule tab is chosen (your rule), the game plays as expected with 20G.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
7.4.0 (r517) on Win7 x64

Please provide any additional information below.
Seems that the rated-rule somehow overrides the speed settings, with default 
slow vallues, when selected (which I guess is not intended behaviour).

Original issue reported on code.google.com by bob.ins...@gmail.com on 29 Oct 2010 at 7:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

this is intended, settings for rated modes are defined in server config files.

Original comment by w.kowa...@gmail.com on 30 Oct 2010 at 10:59

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The fact that rated and leaderboards are tied to rules instead of speed and 
garbage settings is still really backwards. Rule locking makes sense in the 
context of Death or Shirase Versus, for example, but is really out of place in 
things like guideline-esque Versus, 40 Lines, Ultra, etc.. We should make an 
effort to clean that up as soon as possible.

Original comment by kitaru2...@gmail.com on 31 Oct 2010 at 12:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I think that rated games and also ladder/tournament games should be rule locked 
for fairness, this is why i submitted Standard-Zero to noname (as harddrop 
official rule) in first place, but this idea kinda died. Only rule locked games 
can guarantee fairness, in rule free games many abuses are possible (eg Issue 6 
, but there are more). Do you think "any rule" should be added to rated rules 
list?

Original comment by w.kowa...@gmail.com on 31 Oct 2010 at 3:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I dont know about the rated mode in general, or what its exact goals are per se 
(I personally dont care about the number beside my nick, I just want to have 
good games).
But for the leaderboard scores there should definitely be either only one 
board, which saves the scores independent of the rule - or at least a 
"freestyle" board so to say, which is used for any rule. I heard a couple of 
really fast players already complain, that they can't play with the std-zero 
rule (I personally like it and use it all the time), because it has not the 
good behavior they need, if you repeat to the wall, i.e. hold down the 
direction key + hard drop, etc.
so using/forcing it as _the_ standard, if sub 30s 40L players cant play with it 
properly, is definitely not the way to go.

Original comment by bob.ins...@gmail.com on 31 Oct 2010 at 3:19

[GoogleCodeExporter]

adding to that, regarding the rated mode (and why I actually opend this issue):

If I want to have a rated game between two or more players, and I want to play 
it with 20G, or 5G, or whatever, then I should be able to, and not need some 
server-side pre-defined rule, pre-made by someone, which alows me to play with 
these settings rated.

In my opinion it should be possible to just have a checkbox: room is rated: 
yes/no - if the person also wants rule lock, cause he thinkks its not fair for 
his game otherwise (since its rated and all), then fine he can enable 
rule-lock, the option is already there. why restrict people to certain patterns 
how they can play/enjoy the game, just give them all the options imo.

Original comment by bob.ins...@gmail.com on 31 Oct 2010 at 3:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

i know that rated yes/no switch is easier and more flexible way to implement 
rated multiplayer rooms, but i think nullnoname want rated rooms to be official 
settings only (much like it is in blockbox). it aclually makes lot of sense to 
me, i don't know why so many people don't like it.

too many people think of rules as of player preference, but they are actually 
game RULES, and should be same for all players. but of course there are 
problems with it, because we want some of it to be player preference. game 
rules and player preferences should be separated better, but that is not easy 
because some setting item can be player preference in one context and game rule 
in another.

Original comment by w.kowa...@gmail.com on 31 Oct 2010 at 3:49

[GoogleCodeExporter]

since we only have a small community of online players, who normally know 
exactly what they want and love nullpo exactly for its customization 
possibilities, I don't see the point of basically telling the players: either 
use this new rated option/algo exactly our way (using our rule), or we forbid 
you from using it (by just not allowing it ingame).
tbh, I really don't see the point in that logic - the one who creates the room 
should have the freedom to choose, why should he arbitrarily be restricted by a 
third party (developers in this case), how he can use that new feature 
(rating). It's not like he can gain anything from using his self-made rule, 
which is comfortable for him to play, it's still a battle between two or more 
players for more rating - and if he wants to, he can just enable rule-lock to 
make it completely fair. And if he uses a really strange rule, just nobody will 
play him (if he forces rule-lock), pretty simple. If he uses one of the 
standard rules, most players probably use (e.g. std-zero), most players will 
battle with him for ranking - just as intended.

Original comment by bob.ins...@gmail.com on 31 Oct 2010 at 4:01

[GoogleCodeExporter]

if we have leaderboard we want to all people play same game more or less. 
Developers don't force anything, it's up to server administator to decide 
leaderboard rules. I'm not saying current system in good or anything, but i 
don't understand what you complaining about.

Original comment by w.kowa...@gmail.com on 31 Oct 2010 at 5:38

[GoogleCodeExporter]

not sure if I can make it any clearer than I already have:

- use an on/off option for ranked mode in the room settings
- use a "freestyle" (or just one in general) leaderboard which shows 40L 
records, independent of the used rule

or give good reasons why the developer (or the server admin, as you said), i.e. 
a third party should limit the options for all its players, how they can enjoy 
netplay. I tried to argue the position in my posts before, that there aren't 
really any - sorry if those arguments sounded like complaints to you. :)

Original comment by bob.ins...@gmail.com on 31 Oct 2010 at 5:51

[GoogleCodeExporter]

you don't want people playing with field width set to 2 on 40 lines 
leaderboard, do you?

Original comment by w.kowa...@gmail.com on 31 Oct 2010 at 6:53

[GoogleCodeExporter]

that's a good point - never saw that ruleopt.fieldWidth is part of a rule-set 
and changes actual wellsize of a gamemode. a bit bizzare, when you compare this 
with the intention of mainly defining movement and piece rotation behavior and 
such.
this definitely needs fixing/seperating, along those lines kitaru and you 
already pointed out before.

Original comment by bob.ins...@gmail.com on 31 Oct 2010 at 2:48

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The problem with rule-locking rooms is that I play using ARS, and that means I 
won't be able to play with people a lot, because I refuse to play using SRS 
(partly because I suck with it in multiplayer).

Also, field size should definitely be moved out of the rule thing. Unless we 
want Tetrinet multiplayer.

Original comment by Zirc...@gmail.com on 31 Oct 2010 at 7:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I think the main selection should be a speed/garbage preset. Once we start 
getting presets implemented, we should probably shift Rated over to those. From 
there, we have a variety of ways to limit rule selection on a case by case 
basis: completely open, rule patching (open selection, but certain rule options 
would be overridden by the preset/mode), limited selection, or forced (rule 
lock). I don't think there is one surefire solution that matches every mode. 
There are certain circumstances in which you need a lot of control (Death, 
Shirase, etc.) and there are others (standard Versus) where you don't want to 
enforce a lot of options at all (aside from some sanity checks on field 
dimensions, and perhaps things like whether 180 kicks are allowed now that the 
concern has been raised).

Wojtek: You say that rules aren't player preference, but even if you get rid of 
things like timings, Initial Systems, previews, and input handling in the rule, 
you still have the problem of rotation system in standard Versus generally 
being considered a matter of preference. TGM3, TGMA, and BlockBox set precedent 
for playing one rotation system against another, and a good number of players 
are going to expect that precedent to be upheld. We're going to have to figure 
out good ways to include and exclude as necessary, but we can't make universal 
decisions here.

Original comment by kitaru2...@gmail.com on 1 Nov 2010 at 4:46

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Sorry for being so stubborn. This problem is very complex, and I really don't 
have idea how this should be done, but I just always trust in noname's design. 
Freedom is good, but for competition strict rules are good thing in my opinion.

Please note that build-in ranking is leaderboard is not ultimate way to 
compete, for example harddrop's records and ladder have very loose rules that 
allow you to play anygame your want with any setting you want, so you can just 
use it if you like it better.

Original comment by w.kowa...@gmail.com on 6 Nov 2010 at 8:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I added a simple workaround in r536.
You can customize all settings if you enable the custom-ranked-room option.
If this option is used, the room will be displayed as "Custom-Rated room" in 
the room list.
So the players will know that the room may have some altered settings.

Original comment by pbomqlu910963@gmail.com on 6 Nov 2010 at 2:28

• Changed state: Accepted

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hm, allowing altered settings doesn't make sense though. The point of rated 
modes is that speed/garbage settings -- which tend to really shape the feel of 
the game -- are set in stone, and rotation rule settings are only fixed if 
necessary. 

Original comment by kitaru2...@gmail.com on 8 Nov 2010 at 8:08

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Why set them in stone (pre-defined), when for example I want to play with my 
buddies using 3G with combos but no garbage blocking + all spins rewarded, to 
battle each other for our points (rating)? Just as an arbitrary example, I'd 
put those settings (which are forced for everyone in the room ofc, since they 
are not rule based), and we have a fair match imo, where everyone can use the 
rotation system they feel most comfortable with, ARS, SRS, etc. (since I 
wouldn't enable rule-lock for the room personally)

I'm not saying, don't have presets, they should probably be selected / 
presented first, when enabling rated mode for a room. So that someone who 
creates such a room for other random players to join, best uses one of the 
community / server-admin approved game-styles regarding speed + garbage. But 
don't restrict people, who know what they want, from the possibility to make 
their own custom rooms, if they so choose to.

Original comment by bob.ins...@gmail.com on 8 Nov 2010 at 10:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Typically, the point of rating points is that a generally accepted competitive 
standard is being used, and games with custom speedcurves or attack rules are 
excluded. Ideally, if there were presets, each one would be rated separately 
rather than lumped together under one score.

Original comment by kitaru2...@gmail.com on 8 Nov 2010 at 11:22

[GoogleCodeExporter]

yes, that makes sense to me, different ratings for different presets (or 
freestyle)

Original comment by bob.ins...@gmail.com on 8 Nov 2010 at 11:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

this is fixed by presets more or less.

Original comment by w.kowa...@gmail.com on 16 Jan 2011 at 8:29

• Changed state: Fixed