Lila: [Request] Disable rated games for anything faster than 1+0 across all variants
(Copied from https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/hyper-variants)
People constantly use hyper time control to boost their variants' ratings, appear on leaderboards or just have an overrated rating. Horde WC recently saw a 2100 player beat a 2300 hyper horde player by 6-0 in their match, time control was 2+2. This is just one example of many. Hyper variants misrepresent ratings and allow people outside of the variants' communities to boost their ratings and appear stronger than they actually are.
Whitedancingrockstar
All 11 comments
I myself have always preferred blitz time controls in variants, but I disagree that anything faster than 1+0 should be forced to be casual. There is a blitz and bullet community for each variant, and while these sub communities place their priorities on different parts of the game (i.e. blitz players value theory more whereas bullet players value intuition more), they still have to be well rounded to legally achieve a high rating. If someone always plays 陆+0 but can be caught in opening theory, they will never get a high rating. While some people can (and do) get higher rated playing faster time controls, the time control isn鈥檛 the main problem here; the ability to pick and choose who you play and avoid those who can beat you is. Many blitz variant players will employ this tactic to get a higher rating by only playing in the lobby and not in tournaments where the pairing system can force them to play anyone who joins the tournament, so this boosting technique isn鈥檛 a fast time control only thing.
ijhchess
on 6 Oct 2020
Anyone against this?
ornicar
on 6 Oct 2020
Many.
ijhchess
on 6 Oct 2020
Anyone against this?
Not exclusively, but mostly hyper players yes.
But I don't think that should be the focus. The problem is that it's causing a boosting problem where certain players only play hyper to get higher ratings compared to their skill. Considering all the tournaments are blitz and 95% of players play blitz, mostly via tournaments, I don't think that 5% of players should be allowed to farm their ratings and show on leaderboards by purely playing hyper. In principle it's the same reason why rated is disabled for ultra.
Whitedancingrockstar
on 6 Oct 2020
The boosting problem is the result of a small lobby pool where they can easily pick and choose who they play; it's not a time control problem. As I already said, many people exploit this using blitz time controls too.
ijhchess
on 6 Oct 2020
I disagree that rated hyper variants cause inflation: some people are better at hyper than blitz, some people are the other way around. And people will mostly play whatever they're best at (or get best at whatever they play most). Yes, that does mean that a 2100 blitz variant player can beat a 2300 hyper variant player 6 times in a row in blitz, but likewise, a 2100 hyper variant player could beat a 2300 blitz variant player 6 times in a row in hyper. That's a result of having just one rating per variant, which I agree has its problems, but I don't think it's the right solution. It's very blitz-centric.
On the point that rated hyper variants leads to farming: well, if you want to artificially find your way to the top, you'll do it with hyper because the games are much shorter so it's much faster. If this is the main reason for this request, then it's an XY problem and the real solution is to have better defenses against these farmers. Otherwise, banning hyper from rated will just let the farmers move to 1+0 and punish the fair hyper players.
thomas-daniels
on 6 Oct 2020
I understand your point. I don't disagree with it in reality. The problem is that variant tournaments are very blitz-centric. So what happens is that majority of the community only play blitz in variants, and then one smaller percentage play hyper or rapid.
"Otherwise, banning hyper from rated will just let the farmers move to 1+0 and punish the fair hyper players." This I don't agree with, the farmers are not as good at 1+0 as they are at hyper. And blitz players aren't as farmable at bullet as they are at hyper.
What I see is two other solutions, first one being different ratings for bullet, blitz and rapid variants, which is not a very good or practical solution.
The second one is something already somewhat implemented. More time control variance in variant tournaments. Currently hourly tournaments vary between anything from 5+0 to hyper, but daily, weekly, monthly, yearly and shield tournaments, which the most people play, are from what I know solely blitz. The problem is even bigger in variants like 3+ or horde which don't get hourly tournaments, so the only time control 90% of players get to play is blitz.
My suggestion, if not to disable rated hyper variant games, is for daily, weekly, yearly and shield tournaments to start using varying time controls, from hyper to 5+0, which is something that's already been requested by many members of the community.
Whitedancingrockstar
on 6 Oct 2020
This I don't agree with, the farmers are not as good at 1+0 as they are at hyper. And blitz players aren't as farmable at bullet as they are at hyper.
We may be thinking about different types of farmers here -- but I'm thinking of at least one notorious farmer who played 2+0 or slower for the vast majority.
I'm not exactly following what problem the tournament diversity aims to solve. Tournament diversity itself? (Which isn't a bad goal in itself anyway.) Fixing the discrepancy in ratings between hyper and blitz players? (I think they'll still play the time controls they prefer.) Enlarging the pool of hyper players? (Yeah, it probably would.) Fixing the farming problem? (They avoid tournaments anyway because they don't have enough control over their opponents.)
In short, I can't exactly follow anymore what problems are being solved here and by what means.
thomas-daniels
on 6 Oct 2020
In short, I can't exactly follow anymore what problems are being solved here and by what means.
The problem of hyper variant players having different ratings in the same variant for the same skill compared to blitz players, by trying to diversify the tournaments' time controls which the average variant player plays in.
That is, if disabling rated for hyper is not an option (but it was fine to disable it for ultra...)
Whitedancingrockstar
on 7 Oct 2020
The problem of hyper variant players having different ratings in the same variant for the same skill compared to blitz players
In the first place I'm not convinced that this is an actual problem, in the second place I'm not convinced that tournament diversification will actually change it, because people will still play whatever they prefer...
thomas-daniels
on 7 Oct 2020
Perhaps yes, perhaps no. I think it's a problem, but I understand not everybody agrees. I leave this for Thibault, as everything else, to decide
Whitedancingrockstar
on 7 Oct 2020
Related issues
isaacl
路
4Comments
nojoking
路
3Comments
travhimself
路
4Comments
aloisdg
路
4Comments
marmistrz
路
3Comments
Most helpful comment
I disagree that rated hyper variants cause inflation: some people are better at hyper than blitz, some people are the other way around. And people will mostly play whatever they're best at (or get best at whatever they play most). Yes, that does mean that a 2100 blitz variant player can beat a 2300 hyper variant player 6 times in a row in blitz, but likewise, a 2100 hyper variant player could beat a 2300 blitz variant player 6 times in a row in hyper. That's a result of having just one rating per variant, which I agree has its problems, but I don't think it's the right solution. It's very blitz-centric.
On the point that rated hyper variants leads to farming: well, if you want to artificially find your way to the top, you'll do it with hyper because the games are much shorter so it's much faster. If this is the main reason for this request, then it's an XY problem and the real solution is to have better defenses against these farmers. Otherwise, banning hyper from rated will just let the farmers move to 1+0 and punish the fair hyper players.