Free Allegiance Forums

i remember last XT+squad vs world game

imbal = N/A

more on the world team than the XT+Suad team.

world lost, and lost LOADS of ELO, even though the total ELO's were similar, maybe even less for world

From what I remember, TeamRankSums weren't calculated at that time. Unless you were adding up all the ranks on your own and calculating thresholds in your head, I don't think that game should be included in our discussions.

Plus, that game was a "special case" where balancing was purposefully turned off to allow XT to face many more players on the World side.

Again - special cases shouldn't matter.

--TE

Tigereye wrote:QUOTE (Tigereye @ Dec 7 2006, 10:43 PM) I'd like to repeat my suggestion of calculating the TeamRankSum with a minimum of (5) per player.
--TE

That could do the trick TE /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> It could still force 2 vets to take on 7 newbs but i can live with those odds /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

How about just setting an extra trigger. When Balance = AUTO (elo balance) Max Player Imbalance = No more then 3 (or 4 or whatever). When ELO and Max Imbal conflict using the AUTO setting, set Imbal = NA until it evens out. Prevents peopel from not being able to join teams.

guitarism wrote:QUOTE (guitarism @ Dec 8 2006, 03:48 AM) How about just setting an extra trigger. When Balance = AUTO (elo balance) Max Player Imbalance = No more then 3 (or 4 or whatever). When ELO and Max Imbal conflict using the AUTO setting, set Imbal = NA until it evens out. Prevents peopel from not being able to join teams.

It would prevent people from being able to join any team too, in some cases.
Denying players both for rank threshold and for #players can produce scenarios where players can be prevented from joining ANY team.

This was an early design flaw that was fixed when we moved the 'enforce balance' code to the Player Imbalance setting.

--TE

i am kinda worried that this autobalance thing will cause some commanders to prefer XT vs world type of games. I've played these games vs newbs/noobs/voobs before (2 vs 8/3 vs 8 or 10) and although I enjoy them on the vet side I think to the other side it feels like a humiliation.
I'm not sure if it is in the interest of the community to allow such lopsided games /unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":unsure:" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" /> /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> I doubt newbs will like getting beaten down by a few seasoned vets.

I was there with Grim while we were testing this. During this, I had said that if I had Game Control, I'd set the Max Imbalance to 1 for games with less than 10 people. If I understand correctly, this would make the game function as it does now - the number of players on a side have to be 1 apart. For games over 10, I'd use the ELO balance feature, as it would be more accurate.

However, I think the suggestion to add the number of players to the Team ELO is a good start. I'd actually suggest adding 3 times the number of players. If you've got 10 (1)s on a side, it would have a TELO = 40. I'd think that 3 (12)s (TELO = 45) would have a chance against the (1)s. It'd be hard - but not impossible. Keep in mind that your comm would be a (1) too - and the vets would seriously out-tech the newbs in no time flat. Not to mention leveling the miners...

Assuming that the above is not easily coded, Tigereye's suggestion would also be acceptable. But since the current ELO balance feature has no regard for the player numbers on each team, it would be nice to factor that in. It's significant - even in regular games with vets on each side.

TEAM A (7 Players)
(15)
(12)
(12)
(10)
(6)
(5)
(1)
TELO = 61

TEAM B (6 Players)
(18)
(14)
(14)
(9)
(5)
(3)
TELO = 63

This sort of game will happen. Often. Under the ELO balance feature written, when a Vet of say (14) comes to join, he'll be forced to join Team A, since it's got a lower TELO. However, that will stack 8 players against 6 - clearly throwing the game out of whack. With the Player Modification, we get:

TEAM A (7 Players)
(15)
(12)
(12)
(10)
(6)
(5)
(1)
Player Mod=21
TELO = 82

TEAM B (6 Players)
(18)
(14)
(14)
(9)
(5)
(3)
Player Mod=18
TELO = 81

So the joining Vet will have to join Team B, thus keeping the balance more fair. Essentially, it's going to be a very common occurance of having a smaller team with a TELO of slightly higher than the other. In those cases, only a Player Modification will keep the balance tracking fairly.

rushl

Actually nope

In the example you posted above, the (14) will be able to join either team since it will not throw the threshold out of whack.

If he joins the teamw ith 7 players to make 8 on 6, the next player will be forced to join the smaller team.

The balancing method is not intended to make everything perfect all the time - that is impossible.

It *IS* however designed to MINIMIZE the extent of stacks so they are not as severe.

--TE

rushl wrote:QUOTE (rushl @ Dec 8 2006, 07:00 AM) This sort of game will happen. Often. Under the ELO balance feature written, when a Vet of say (14) comes to join, he'll be forced to join Team A, since it's got a lower TELO. However, that will stack 8 players against 6 - clearly throwing the game out of whack. With the Player Modification, we get:

TEAM A (7 Players)
(15)
(12)
(12)
(10)
(6)
(5)
(1)
Player Mod=21
TELO = 82

TEAM B (6 Players)
(18)
(14)
(14)
(9)
(5)
(3)
Player Mod=18
TELO = 81

So the joining Vet will have to join Team B, thus keeping the balance more fair. Essentially, it's going to be a very common occurance of having a smaller team with a TELO of slightly higher than the other. In those cases, only a Player Modification will keep the balance tracking fairly.

rushl

You got the Player mods wrong, it’s the number of players squared, which makes for more of a curve

TEAM A (7 Players)
(15)
(12)
(12)
(10)
(6)
(5)
(1)
TELO = 61
+
Player Mod = 49
TELO = 110

TEAM B (6 Players)
(18)
(14)
(14)
(9)
(5)
(3)
TELO = 63
+
Player Mod = 36
TELO = 99


If that still doesn’t break the threshold, then maybe lowering it to determine which team a player can join would be a good idea.

Personally I would have preferred a system that would even out players of the same rank even after game start. However such a system would prevent players from joining both teams regularly. Still for games with more than 30 or 40 players such a system would still be best. *shrugs*