Free Allegiance Forums

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Feb 5 2013, 04:37 PM) To stop people farming for points you could make actions take diminishing returns for point values so it's not worth it to stand by a Bios tele and just pick up pods.

1) I'm not talking about ingame points. Those are meaningless.
2) Farming points is a *very* common game design mechanic that many people like. Instead of discouraging point farming it should be made fun and rewarding!

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Feb 5 2013, 04:37 PM) Elo/Trueskill is not a good system to determine how good a player is on large numbers of people.

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Feb 5 2013, 04:37 PM) Almost 2 years ago I also asked for a sample database of TAG games to be given so people can test their own ranking systems and put their money where their mouth is instead of just talking, got a response from TE saying he could send some CSV files for me to sort through which I accept and then request thread locked and nothing since.

I agree there should be a public (by registration & token auth is fine) api to get the data we have. I coded around it with my old leaderboard by scraping the previous leaderboard every 10 minutes or so. I got some csv files from fwiffo which I used during development, maybe he can help (or you can get my old files, but they are really outdated).

Pro arguments allow remote viewing of a pilot:
- coaching of said pilot so he can be a better player
- remote detection of cheaters / afk-ers / law enforcement disputes

Against:
- secret spying on enemy pilot positions, spoiled htt runs
- it won't be a single pilot game if said pilot has secret co pilots.

People will watch golf and baseball. I don't think pacing has much to do with it.

One-Man-Bucket wrote:QUOTE (One-Man-Bucket @ Feb 5 2013, 02:13 AM) The only incentives that people care about (other than the implicit one of getting a rewarding game) is certain stats (kills, drone kills, wins) on the leaderboard.

I like to think that social opprobrium works too.

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Feb 5 2013, 07:37 AM) Hey I proposed a points based system so that even losing means you can increase in rank (or at the very least lose less rank)

THATS WHAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES. Believe me. I have the 8th lowest stack rating on the leaderboard, I lose 55% of the games I play. That doesn't stop me from getting top ten on the leaderboard. You do not have to stack to rank up.

One-Man-Bucket wrote:QUOTE (One-Man-Bucket @ Feb 5 2013, 04:16 PM) 1) I'm not talking about ingame points. Those are meaningless.
2) Farming points is a *very* common game design mechanic that many people like. Instead of discouraging point farming it should be made fun and rewarding!




I agree there should be a public (by registration & token auth is fine) api to get the data we have. I coded around it with my old leaderboard by scraping the previous leaderboard every 10 minutes or so. I got some csv files from fwiffo which I used during development, maybe he can help (or you can get my old files, but they are really outdated).

I would prefer TAG ones for more information, the more data available the better.

Also I am talking about using in-game points to affect rank, perhaps can skew points even more so the team stacked against gets more points for doing w/e

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Feb 5 2013, 04:41 PM) THATS WHAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES. Believe me. I have the 8th lowest stack rating on the leaderboard, I lose 55% of the games I play. That doesn't stop me from getting top ten on the leaderboard. You do not have to stack to rank up.

I'm almost certain that losing means you will lose rank, if you are stacked against the loss can be minor, maybe even tiny but it's your wins that are getting you your rank.

Winning against the stack causes a huge swing. Losing against the stack does very little. It's perfectly possible to antistack, lose more than you win and go up in rank.

One-Man-Bucket wrote:QUOTE (One-Man-Bucket @ Feb 5 2013, 08:57 AM) I only added the stuff after the ------ in my edit. I agree with bacon and was hoping that you would clarify why you are not.

I don't consider the ability to choose your team with complete freedom (complete being the keyword) part of Allegiance design - the game will work just fine without it, given supporting changes.

So that leaves only the issue of determining what team make up constitutes a stack - once you go beyond a generic solution like TrueSkill and commit to coding an Allegiance specific solution (which can include monitoring and iterative learning) it's not a difficult problem.

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Feb 5 2013, 08:49 AM) I'm almost certain that losing means you will lose rank, if you are stacked against the loss can be minor, maybe even tiny but it's your wins that are getting you your rank.

You said "lose less rank". That's exactly what AS does when you lose against a stack.

Of course wins get you rank. Wins are ultimately the only statistic that matters. I can bomb a lot of useless ops and kill miners long after the enemy has reached endgane tech but if it doesn't translate into a win, what good is it?

I mean, let's say you get all the data you need. Let's say you get statistics that can distinguish podding a nan from chasing noob scouts through empty sectors, that can count the number of bullets you land on a bomb run and credits you accordingly for the kill. How do you weight the importance of events according to objective criteria? How do you calculate that killing a miner is worth n.nn times as many points as eyeing a bomb run? How do score someone who is a miner killer par excellence but posts resigns and actively works to demoralize his team after only a couple of setbacks? How does the system figure out that the guy who got podded a zillion times, who never flew anything but a scout, and never left friendly sectors is the guy who won the game for you because he was sitting with the miners, kept them safe and mined you to victory? How do you, in short, write an algorithm to untangle the chaotic web of a million possible interactions that could happen in a game in order to scientifically proportion credit for the one discrete, undeniable result that you care about? It's impossible.

There's something to be said for feel-good points and XP points which correlate more with time-in-game than any skill factor, but never in a million years would you use that info to balance teams.

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Feb 5 2013, 07:37 AM) Elo/Trueskill is not a good system to determine how good a player is on large numbers of people.

Says who? How do you know this?

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Feb 5 2013, 07:37 AM) You can't accurately rate players in team sports like Football and Rugby with Elo/Trueskill.

That's because professional sports don't play pickup games. When the team composition is identical or near identical every game, Truskill is blind. Now if you randomized the players every game, Truskill is going to very quickly notice when one side has statistically worse players than the other.

With current team sizes, 1 person is a stack.
Stacking is a lack of playerbase problem.
Stop being a moron and wasting time trying to code some antistacking crap, and work on something that actually attracts player.

Sheriff Metz wrote:QUOTE (Sheriff Metz @ Feb 5 2013, 01:29 PM) With current team sizes, 1 person is a stack.
Stacking is a lack of playerbase problem.
Stop being a moron and wasting time trying to code some antistacking crap, and work on something that actually attracts player.

this is so true.
my rank is 15. either i antistack a very onesided game- which usually results in a misearble already lost game i play out, or I am a "stacker" if both team is even
me english and grammar are gooder