I'd be inclined to revise the rules governing a future (similar) contest to indicate "matches that end prematurely due to disconnects shall not be counted towards the final consecutive win total" or whatever the score metric turns out to be for the particular game. We've had examples of players who proactively and voluntarily deducted a "win" from their final total due to accidental "rematch" games so I think any language clarifying the treatment of disconnects upfront would go a long way. I'd imagine the approach you've pitched being applicable in a tournament environment but I didn't really view this Challenge as a tournament since it's unranked play (no advance brackets) against a continuous stream of randomly assigned matches. The question of fairness can only be handled so far. Maybe a couple of Challenge players got lucky and signed on when a bunch of noobs where trying out the game for the first time, versus others who slogged through more experienced opponents and had their runs cut short. But in the end, there's just an element of randomness that has to be accepted, and I would include the rare occasion of rage quits.

The non-awarding of a disconnect would also align with how MultiVersus tracks disconnected matches - in the example of the Shaggy disconnect, the match is not awarded as a victory in the player's Recent Matches tally. While it seems plausible that the competitor did rage quit in round 3 instead of just walking off the edge like he did in round 2, I can imagine that a good share of disconnects are due to crappy Internet connections or server connections. I don't think we'd want to try and adjudicate whether a disconnect is intentional or not. I think that's why MultiVersus doesn't ascribe a motive and award a win to the opposing player - it's just a null event that yes, sucks but has to be taken in stride.

EDIT: as a final note on penalizing the rage quitting player, if MultiVersus is similar to Splatoon 3, I expect that the Shaggy player was given a 5 or 10 minute "time out" penalty. And as someone who's sat out numerous time outs due to crappy Splatoon networking, MultiVersus might likely dole out these penalties to innocent players, too.

Troy_Whelan, bulkbogan, Jace Hall thanked this post

Troy_Whelan, bulkbogan, Barthax liked this post

Seems too easy for a couple Bro's to screw the system.

Jace Hall, datagod thanked this post

Troy_Whelan liked this post

New to twin galaxies but from the perspective of this challenge, I agree with Jason Bennett’s thought here. In many cases you can’t definitively place blame for network errors, so treating the matchup as if it never happened the way Multiversus career screen does would seem to be a consistent way to handle this.

Jace Hall thanked this post

Troy_Whelan, Barthax, datagod liked this post

If I understand the outline correctly, then the adjudication can only occur on what can be verified: that which the game shows in its interface. We cannot "know" what the other party did or did not experience and if the game does not count such circumstances as a win, then there is no evidence to support increasing the tally.

I would also like to add that such timed events need more stable rules. It has felt like the only vote that can be cast is those which are sure-fire Yes.

- Those claims that are obviously unsupported by the evidence - like #matches is woefully short of the claim - we get TG staff (whomever) meddling in the claim values vs. TG's long-term assertion of the value of Credibility Rating (this is entirely a TG-contrived issue) leading to: not even a No vote can be relied upon to remain valid thus teaching there's no value in CR because there's no stability in what we're voting for.

- The rules did not define what should happen in the case of a game crash. The flips sides of the game crash are: the game company is surely never going to admit there's a flaw in their game in such promotion exercises thus would never write such in the rules vs. this is a normal termination circumstance for the main scoreboard: if its not written into the rules, termination of the game should be termination of the claim.

- For such long winded possibles runs, the game offers no passive measure to verify the claim. The "value" of the reward for voting on a small claim is the same as a large claim: there's little incentive to check longer runs.

Troy_Whelan thanked this post

Troy_Whelan liked this post

Within the MultiVerse game, Recent Matches does not display the fight as a Win since the fight never occurred; it does not show as a default win, technical win or anything else; it is not listed as having occurred at all.

TG rules are directly tied to Wins as reflected on the Recent Matches screen; in other words, the fight must take place and you must win; other rules also indicate not to change character, win streak must be uninterrupted, etc. Neither the MultiVerse game nor TG rules acknowledge any type of Win other than Wins resulting from actual competition.

Any other rule set would have to be TGTS derived rules. Tracking anything else as a Win opens doors for abusing the system and puts doubt on top scores. If rules tried to subdivide which technical wins are valid that would be subjective; rage, accidental, helping a friend, network, etc.

If network failure is counted as a win, a gamer could hardware (not wireless) connect their computer to a router, then if losing a fight they could simply disconnect their session and the Network Failure would be a technical Win. This could result in having much higher scores due to gamer manipulation. They could “Win” as long as they wanted to without ever having completed a match.

Other Technical Wins should not be considered since this is random competition and not planned events like professional sports. In professional sports there can be a technical win if the opposing team/player quits or doesn’t arrive, but with random competition you just wait for the next opponent; similar to if another team or player was allowed to arrive in a professional setting as a backup competitor. If the game had a bracket or ranking system where players competed against each other to move up the ranks these technical wins could apply, but with games like MultiVerse where the only ranking is final Win count there should be no Technical Wins.

Barthax, bulkbogan liked this post

Within Multiversus, disconnects on the part of the other player are typically counted as wins on the part of the player who didn't inititate them. This idea is even perpetuated in the game's own ranked mode, where a disconnect will not only incur a ranked penalty on the part of the disconnecter, but it will also award the winners the ranked points equal to 2 wins in a best of 3 (those responsible for the disconnections in this game also typically don't see the official disconnection screen from the game, which is part of the reason I happened to count it as a win in this instance). Notably, wins as a result of disconnects do not appear in the recent matches section but you are still awarded ranked points.

This sentiment also aligns with the accepted standard in a lot of fighting game community tournament rulesets, where online DCs, in-person controller disconnects, cases of severe online lag caused by individuals are treated as full on wins or round wins. Many online games have measures that identify those that disonnect (MultiVersus itself has disconnect penalties, for example), and while I think the claim of worrying about foul play on the part of players is valid, many communities have figured out means to weed out and punish deception, so I would say throwing your hands up and assuming there is no solution to an issue that has existed for decades of both online and in-person gaming competition is a bit silly.

And just to be thorough, even though this competition takes place in "Unranked 1v1", your hidden MMR (match making rank) is still at play in the background determining the opponents you face, so the process is not random. My MMR for 1v1 was pretty low, since I don't play the unranked or ranked 1v1 modes, but my 2v2 MMR is comparatively pretty high since I play a lot of 2v2 ranked. It started me off facing lower tier opponents as a result of my low 1v1 MMR, but ultimately as I started to win more, it started to factor in my high 2v2 MMR, increasing the skill level of the opponents I faced in response.

That all said, I agree that the simplest and most efficient solution for a community such as this would be to not count disconnects and consider them null and void, as if they didn't happen.

I find it pretty frustrating that despite disconnects not being discussed in the rulesets for the contest or TG's guidelines whatsoever that my submission was rejected outright on the basis of something that I couldn't have known prior to submission (no language on disconnects at all is something that I would say is a huge omission from my point of view). I was 50/50 myself on whether or not I should count the win or not, but I opted to do so due to my experience in other fighting games, as listed earlier in the post. I would have hoped that my win count would have been merely reduced from 21 to 20 after such deliberation on an issue that clearly hasn't come up much in this community before.

Barthax thanked this post

The Evener liked this post

Originally Posted by Goufuem

Within Multiversus, disconnects on the part of the other player are typically counted as wins on the part of the player who didn't inititate them. This idea is even perpetuated in the game's own ranked mode, where a disconnect will not only incur a ranked penalty on the part of the disconnecter, but it will also award the winners the ranked points equal to 2 wins in a best of 3 (those responsible for the disconnections in this game also typically don't see the official disconnection screen from the game, which is part of the reason I happened to count it as a win in this instance). Notably, wins as a result of disconnects do not appear in the recent matches section but you are still awarded ranked points.

That is all interesting from a MultiVersus player perspective, but the Bounty Rules were written to align with the Recent Matches success where actual Wins are tracked.

Originally Posted by Goufuem

This sentiment also aligns with the accepted standard in a lot of fighting game community tournament rulesets, where online DCs, in-person controller disconnects, cases of severe online lag caused by individuals are treated as full on wins or round wins. Many online games have measures that identify those that disonnect (MultiVersus itself has disconnect penalties, for example), and while I think the claim of worrying about foul play on the part of players is valid, many communities have figured out means to weed out and punish deception, so I would say throwing your hands up and assuming there is no solution to an issue that has existed for decades of both online and in-person gaming competition is a bit silly.

There is a solution - fight the opponent and win the match; anything less does not count.

Originally Posted by Goufuem

And just to be thorough, even though this competition takes place in "Unranked 1v1", your hidden MMR (match making rank) is still at play in the background determining the opponents you face, so the process is not random. My MMR for 1v1 was pretty low, since I don't play the unranked or ranked 1v1 modes, but my 2v2 MMR is comparatively pretty high since I play a lot of 2v2 ranked. It started me off facing lower tier opponents as a result of my low 1v1 MMR, but ultimately as I started to win more, it started to factor in my high 2v2 MMR, increasing the skill level of the opponents I faced in response.

That all said, I agree that the simplest and most efficient solution for a community such as this would be to not count disconnects and consider them null and void, as if they didn't happen.

Agreed, that is what was done.

Originally Posted by Goufuem

I find it pretty frustrating that despite disconnects not being discussed in the rulesets for the contest or TG's guidelines whatsoever that my submission was rejected outright on the basis of something that I couldn't have known prior to submission (no language on disconnects at all is something that I would say is a huge omission from my point of view). I was 50/50 myself on whether or not I should count the win or not, but I opted to do so due to my experience in other fighting games, as listed earlier in the post. I would have hoped that my win count would have been merely reduced from 21 to 20 after such deliberation on an issue that clearly hasn't come up much in this community before.

Your submission was not rejected because of a disconnect, it was rejected because you counted that as a Win. The Bounty Rules state clearly that the Recent Matches screen will be used to validate Wins where actual fights occurred.

Originally Posted by Troy_Whelan

Your submission was not rejected because of a disconnect, it was rejected because you counted that as a Win. The Bounty Rules state clearly that the Recent Matches screen will be used to validate Wins where actual fights occurred.

I would be on board with the logic in this, but the bounty rules don't even require you to show the recent matches screen which implies that it would not be the sole decider in what counts as a win or not.

On the official website for the contest, the language states "it is recommended that it show the ‘Recent Matches’ list from the ‘Career’ section of the game menu with final results that match the win streak."

On the bounty, the language is more hardlined but still states "It is highly recommended but not required that your video include in-game audio and show the ‘Recent Matches’ list from the ‘Career’ section of the game menu with final results that match the win streak."

Originally Posted by Goufuem

Within Multiversus, disconnects on the part of the other player are typically counted as wins on the part of the player who didn't inititate them. This idea is even perpetuated in the game's own ranked mode, where a disconnect will not only incur a ranked penalty on the part of the disconnecter, but it will also award the winners the ranked points equal to 2 wins in a best of 3 (those responsible for the disconnections in this game also typically don't see the official disconnection screen from the game, which is part of the reason I happened to count it as a win in this instance). Notably, wins as a result of disconnects do not appear in the recent matches section but you are still awarded ranked points.
[snip]

Thanks for your reply Goufuem, I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about in and outs of how matches are handled in the MultiVersus community. One thing I've wondered about is whether there's an in-game stat that might assist as a quick means to verify the number of consecutive victories claimed by someone. In looking over the Career screen, I wondered if the 1v1 stat might be used in this way? For example, if someone started a run by showing this 1v1 stat, and then showed it again at the end, it could be used as a secondary piece of evidence for confirming the result of a manual counting of consecutive victories? I guess a manual fight-by-fight review would still be required since you wouldn't want someone to sneak in a loss in the middle of those matches if you tried to rely on the 1v1 stat alone.

Originally Posted by The Evener

Thanks for your reply Goufuem, I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about in and outs of how matches are handled in the MultiVersus community. One thing I've wondered about is whether there's an in-game stat that might assist as a quick means to verify the number of consecutive victories claimed by someone. In looking over the Career screen, I wondered if the 1v1 stat might be used in this way? For example, if someone started a run by showing this 1v1 stat, and then showed it again at the end, it could be used as a secondary piece of evidence for confirming the result of a manual counting of consecutive victories? I guess a manual fight-by-fight review would still be required since you wouldn't want someone to sneak in a loss in the middle of those matches if you tried to rely on the 1v1 stat alone.

MultiVersus currently lacks a robust means to show consecutive victories. There is a win tally on the career screen, but it merely shows the total number of wins acquired across all game modes rather than wins acquired in one specific game mode like 1v1. The most thorough way to keep track of it currently would likely be to show the recent matches scroll every 20 matches (since it only holds the last 20 matches). Additionally players could keep track of the number of wins they had at the start of the career screen, and subtract from the total number of wins they have at the end of their session (this could also be done with individual character win tallies as there are badges that can be displayed that show this as well).

Originally Posted by Goufuem

I would be on board with the logic in this, but the bounty rules don't even require you to show the recent matches screen which implies that it would not be the sole decider in what counts as a win or not.

On the official website for the contest, the language states "it is recommended that it show the ‘Recent Matches’ list from the ‘Career’ section of the game menu with final results that match the win streak."

On the bounty, the language is more hardlined but still states "It is highly recommended but not required that your video include in-game audio and show the ‘Recent Matches’ list from the ‘Career’ section of the game menu with final results that match the win streak."

Key words "with final results that match the win streak." It is expected that the Recent Matches reflects your Win streak, and recommended for the gamer to show this to confirm Wins. Yours was not a Win as reflected in the Recent Matches screen displayed immediately after the network failure. It does not reflect the fight with Shaggy at all - it was skipped since it was not a Completed Match. The MultiVersus game ignored it, the TG rules ignored it, and I ignored it when adjudicating the submission. You counted it as a victory when it was not.

Originally Posted by Troy_Whelan

Key words "with final results that match the win streak." It is expected that the Recent Matches reflects your Win streak, and recommended for the gamer to show this to confirm Wins. Yours was not a Win as reflected in the Recent Matches screen displayed immediately after the network failure. It does not reflect the fight with Shaggy at all - it was skipped since it was not a Completed Match. The MultiVersus game ignored it, the TG rules ignored it, and I ignored it when adjudicating the submission. You counted it as a victory when it was not.

I see. Apologies for any headaches this dispute may have caused you. I'm relatively young and was unaware of the legacy of Twin Galaxies prior to this and how they typically handle scoring (and how they do not change submitted scores out of principle). My own experiences with gaming competition are limited to tournaments either grass roots or run by major companies/publishers or niche challenge run/scoring communities for 3D beat 'em ups like Ninja Gaiden 2 (360), so this whole thing has been a learning experience for me that I'll be mindful of going forward. I can respect that this decision best preserves the integrity of the scores for the many games this place celebrates.

Troy_Whelan, Jace Hall thanked this post

Troy_Whelan, Barthax liked this post

OK this is crap. I lost credibility. Cause I voted NO on this submission, because it was missing audio. Then the rules changed about No audio, Then my vote was on the wrong side after the rule change. Now I took a credibility hit. Can we fix this............ @TWIN GALAXIES

https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/279411-Bounty-Challenges-Bounty-Challenge-The-Multiversus-Win-Streak-Challenge!-9

wwdkong thanked this post

Originally Posted by timmell

OK this is crap. I lost credibility. Cause I voted NO on this submission, because it was missing audio. Then the rules changed about No audio, Then my vote was on the wrong side after the rule change. Now I took a credibility hit. Can we fix this............ @TWIN GALAXIES

https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/279411-Bounty-Challenges-Bounty-Challenge-The-Multiversus-Win-Streak-Challenge!-9

Agreed, this situation is unfortunate. However, there was extensive public discussion on this matter, including at least two specific messages on the submission itself where other adjudicators acknowledged the audio change. Additionally, there was over a week between the rule change and the completion of adjudication, allowing ample time for adjudicators to review the updated information and adjust their votes accordingly.

This highlights the importance of users monitoring submissions that they vote on, as new information may arise during adjudication that could influence voting decisions. To support this, the TG system notifies users when comments are made on submissions they’ve participated in, ensuring they remain informed about ongoing discussions.

creditable score my butt! Ref and umpires don't change the rules while the ball is still in play.

Especially when a HUGE RULE has been changed after submissions and voting has started. All votes should at least be reset. When rules have been changed after a submission.

I don't think everyone can sit and watch every submission waiting for a rule change on a submission. We got other parts of our lives to enjoy.

Those notifications get cumbersome, when turned on and most of them are. " great score" or voted " yes"

Originally Posted by TWIN GALAXIES

aAgreed, this situation is unfortunate. However, there was extensive public discussion on this matter, including at least two specific messages on the submission itself where other adjudicators acknowledged the audio change. Additionally, there was over a week between the rule change and the completion of adjudication, allowing ample time for adjudicators to review the updated information and adjust their votes accordingly.

This highlights the importance of users monitoring submissions that they vote on, as new information may arise during adjudication that could influence voting decisions. To support this, the TG system notifies users when comments are made on submissions they’ve participated in, ensuring they remain informed about ongoing discussions.

wwdkong thanked this post

Barthax liked this post

Originally Posted by timmell

I don't think everyone can sit and watch every submission waiting for a rule change on a submission. We got other parts of our lives to enjoy.

Those notifications get cumbersome, when turned on and most of them are. " great score" or voted " yes"

The purpose of monitoring adjudications you’ve participated in is not to ‘wait for a rule change,’ but to stay informed about ongoing discussions or discoveries related to the performance.

Even if you initially voted with confidence, it’s possible to miss something critical that another adjudicator, voting later and with potentially more expertise or attention, might uncover. When such discoveries are made, they’re often highlighted through the comment system, allowing others to reevaluate their positions.

This has occurred in many adjudications. A notable example is the MK Wizard Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out!! adjudication, where many initially voted to accept the performance. Later, an adjudicator demonstrated that the video had been edited. Those who ignored notifications or ongoing discussions about the submission ultimately incurred a CR penalty for their oversight.

While we understand that this is an unfortunate situation for you, reasonable communication, time, and notifications were provided for participants to review the new information and, if necessary, adjust their votes—just as with any other adjudication.

No I"m sorry this is way different. Discovery with in the submission is one thing. But changing the criteria/rules for the submission after submission is a total trap for the adjucator.

I understand it would take way more man hours to correct it in the system afterward. I get that. I don't need it corrected. But moving forward, I think a reset on the votes would be the fair thing to do after a rule change.

As in this case the rules were changed by Twin Galaxies, Not the community of users.

If we/users made a mistake on the rules for creating a new track , the solution would be to create a whole new track.

Originally Posted by TWIN GALAXIES

The purpose of monitoring adjudications you’ve participated in is not to ‘wait for a rule change,’ but to stay informed about ongoing discussions or discoveries related to the performance.

Even if you initially voted with confidence, it’s possible to miss something critical that another adjudicator, voting later and with potentially more expertise or attention, might uncover. When such discoveries are made, they’re often highlighted through the comment system, allowing others to reevaluate their positions.

This has occurred in many adjudications. A notable example is the MK Wizard Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out!! adjudication, where many initially voted to accept the performance. Later, an adjudicator demonstrated that the video had been edited. Those who ignored notifications or ongoing discussions about the submission ultimately incurred a CR penalty for their oversight.

While we understand that this is an unfortunate situation for you, reasonable communication, time, and notifications were provided for participants to review the new information and, if necessary, adjust their votes—just as with any other adjudication.

Originally Posted by timmell

No I"m sorry this is way different. Discovery with in the submission is one thing. But changing the criteria/rules for the submission after submission is a total trap for the adjucator.

I understand it would take way more man hours to correct it in the system afterward. I get that. I don't need it corrected. But moving forward, I think a reset on the votes would be the fair thing to do after a rule change.

As in this case the rules were changed by Twin Galaxies, Not the community of users.

If we/users made a mistake on the rules for creating a new track , the solution would be to create a whole new track.

I definitely understand what you are saying. My only point with the above was that if users keep an eye on their adjudications, they will of course catch any important information about the adjudication that rolls through, whether it be a rule change or cheating discovery, the mechanism to become aware of the information is the same.

In regard to the rest of your sentiment, which I also understand and generally agree with, please see my response post here:

https://www.twingalaxies.com/andrewg/wall/13777/hey/page/1#comment105457

Originally Posted by Jace Hall

I definitely understand what you are saying. My only point with the above was that if users keep an eye on their adjudications, they will of course catch any important information about the adjudication that rolls through, whether it be a rule change or cheating discovery, the mechanism to become aware of the information is the same.

This is untrue as the history has consistently proven submissions develop "changing sentiment" at the end of their submission lifespan leaving some time zones in the lurch - especially of switches from Yes to No voting. I don't expect this to be something the algorithm can be programmed to account for but the simple reality of the "crowd lurching from one vote to another" doesn't fit your narrative.

Originally Posted by Barthax

This is untrue as the history has consistently proven submissions develop "changing sentiment" at the end of their submission lifespan leaving some time zones in the lurch - especially of switches from Yes to No voting. I don't expect this to be something the algorithm can be programmed to account for but the simple reality of the "crowd lurching from one vote to another" doesn't fit your narrative.

I'm not sure I understand. My point was that the mechanisms that disperse the information are the same regardless of what the information is.