Beta testing and balance

[Ozricosis]

I think what we have learned here is that no matter what the facts say, we will get an auto "Balance" button for Allegiance.

once we get the button then maybe we will get the AZ stats back. those were more accurate than ELO. No points were given away free in the AZ stats like they were in our current system.

I think we have shown that more often than not time played ranks are more accurate than times won ranks or FREE ranks. *kicks dead horse one more time*

Now, balance button will work with equal commanders... maybe. If the ranking system is reset and done by time played.

Commander Rank Win Percentage based on how many games they have commanded. /wub.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":iluv:" border="0" alt="wub.gif" />

If you reset the commander win/loss ratio you will be making a huge mistake.

I'm tired of saying the same things over and over and being ignored.

It won't work properly. Prove me wrong. Please.

[Dogbones]

This is just the FIRST step. (well it is the step number 1198347, this won't be the first change nor the last)
Some think it is the first towards Hades, others Salvation.
It will be neither.
There will be those that leave over this just like there were those that left over core changes and those that left because of the 'stack' and those that just got burnt out.

While some clamor for the old days, it is pretty clear that while the game was kept alive, which in and of itself was a HUGE undertaking, the community has since floundered, and now some of those that kept it alive are taking action again to make it grow. This is not an 'us' versus 'them' but it is a large enough community that not everyone is going to be happy with the changes.

Dog

[Aoreias]

Commander win/loss games include games that don't count because of excessive stack.

Heavily stacked commanders can end up with an artificially high win/loss rate because of it.

[Psychosis]

alright, everything aside.

assuming that we have perfectly evenly skilled teams, down to the player v player ratio.

it all comes down to the comm...

how do we balance that?

[Grim_Reaper_4u]

Could you clarify the following for me :

- will the autobalance button even out newbs among the 2 teams or will it just calculate a combo that ends up with approximately the same team ELO? So is there a chance you get a 1-1-1-1-14-12 vs 5-5-5-5-5-5 ?

- will the in-game auto-balance feature do something similar?

- will the autobalance button even out high ranking vets among the 2 teams or will it just calculate a combo that ends up with approximately the same team ELO? So is there a chance that 4 level 20 vets and 4 level 5 newbs form a team against 8 level 12 voobs? IMHO 1 level 20 vet + 1 level 2 newb does not equal 2 level 11 vets, esp if there are multiple high level vets on the same team.

@Pook: yes, commander ratings should be based on balanced games so essentially you can start using the comm precedence rules about 2 months after you implement the autobalance button if you wipe stats after the introduction. Prereq is that only even games count towards win/loss% (and not also hugely stacked ones like they do now). Preferably only games where autobalance is ON count towards comm win/loss stats (or even ELO stats) : this would also promote the use of the balance button by commanders (use it or get no stats /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> )

[Grimmwolf_GB]

Don't delete the command ratings. Sure, they are also based on stacked games, but most of the times those stacked games favoured the better commander. The percentage for most comms is definately in the right area.

[Pook]

Grim (Reaper not Wolf):

I haven't actually read the code implementation... but the way that TE and I originally laid it out would mean even distribution of ranks. It would start with the highest player, and then go down the list in order from higest rank to lowest. After each player was assigned to a team, it would reevaluate the team sums to decide where the next player should go.

Using your example player pool, the teams should end up close to:

14,5,5,5,1
12,5,5,5,1,1,1

Like I said, I haven't seen TE's actual code - so I'm not sure if he has any exceptions that would alter that outcome or not.

[Rebootedrock]

I am up for whatever brings new people and skill to the game. That being said, The most common complaints of new players is the long wait time between games, this is the internet and no one has patience here aside from those who we chose to lead.
It would be very easy to just let the players decide for themselves, see how it gets used and act from there. This speculation isn't going anywhere.
Without new players we will flounder, etc. you all know what happens.
Thats why we have these unwritten rules and concerns about newbs/n00bs.

I personally don't care, I'll still be around here for my squad, pickup games or no. /cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cool.gif" />

[Aoreias]

QUOTE (Grimmwolf_GB @ Oct 20 2006, 05:16 AM) Don't delete the command ratings. Sure, they are also based on stacked games, but most of the times those stacked games favoured the better commander. The percentage for most comms is definately in the right area.

While that may be well and good, it's pretty unfair to commanders who actually are decent, but are new and get stacked against.

Any commander that is good will have a win/loss ratio that stands on its own and doesn't need a stack.

[Ozricosis]

The whole point of this game in the past has been to pay your dues and get a higher rank so you CAN command.

Now those ranks are just being given out? Seems fishy to me.