Loser should be able to validate a defeat

palmerabollo / game-ladder

The simplest game ladder out there.

2 stars 2 forks source link

Loser should be able to validate a defeat #3

Open palmerabollo opened 11 years ago

palmerabollo commented 11 years ago

Send an email to the loser with a link to confirm the result. This implies asking the user for an email (or retrieving it from FB)

gulfuroth commented 11 years ago

I'd go for a simpler solution, highlighting your defeats in the matches list and adding a "X" button there that allows you to "reject" it and only allowing to do that in the 24hrs after the match.

palmerabollo commented 11 years ago

This is a good approach. The issue is not related with the validation, but with how that affects to the points you have won/lost during that 24h. The elo for those players directly or indirectly related with that game should be recalculated...

Example: A (1000 points), B (1000 points), C (1000 points) Then: A wins against B => A (1050 points), B (950 points), C (1000 points) A wins against C => A (1080 points), B (950 points), C (970 points)

Now B rejects his defeat against A, should the final result be: A (1030 points), B (1000 points), C (970 points) or A (1050 points), B (1000 points), C (950 points) ?

Because C is affected, as he is also indirectly related with A. That is the question, my friend.

gulfuroth commented 11 years ago

Yeah, I was already aware of that. But we're already having that problem when people don't claim victories in the same order that games are played. It's what we have with the current system :-D. Shit happens.

Alternate options:

Track points based on previous day's position. This would also enable us to see "how much you have improved" since yesterday (+2 positions! :+1: :+1: )
Track all games (from the last x days) and calculate scores dynamically. This would be a nice addition to prevent deserters from staying on top of the classification forever... Maybe worth a separate issue.

palmerabollo commented 11 years ago

I agree. It is true that is already happening, and "time puts everyone in their place". We can go with the simple approach you proposed before. It is easy because each "Game" already has a field "elodiff", so we know how many points were assigned.

Exponential decay of points belonging to old games and advanced tracking can be addressed as a separate issue.