Free Allegiance Forums

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Jul 16 2009, 09:52 AM) The problem is that we have exactly 3 experts and only a small handful of veterans and everyone else is crowded in the intermediate range.

most players are intermediate at best
Also i think i missed it, why were we switching from 0-30?

Broodwich wrote:QUOTE (Broodwich @ Jul 16 2009, 11:30 AM) most players are intermediate at best

Which is the definition of intermediate so yay, the system works!

Broodwich wrote:QUOTE (Broodwich @ Jul 17 2009, 12:00 AM) most players are intermediate at best
Also i think i missed it, why were we switching from 0-30?

Because AS works natively in a 0-50 form and we're currently compressing to 0-30, which is less than ideal.

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Jul 16 2009, 11:34 AM) Which is the definition of intermediate so yay, the system works!

which was my other point

edit: added quote cause immz ninjad in
also i'd think that by now we can agree that ranks arent exactly dead on accurate. so coming up with a new scale because baker is bored is rather pointless

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Jul 16 2009, 11:52 AM) Uh, no, I understand perfectly well what you're trying to do. And my feedback is that 50 ranks is too granular. Especially if you want to give a unique name to each rank. 30 ranks is just fine -- or it would be, if the distribution were smoothed out rather than everyone being smooshed between levels 8 and 14.

Ignore me (or ridicule me if need be) if I've gotten Baker's comments wrong; but hasn't he pointed to a variable system of applying the rank name, independent of the actual rank value.

So in his word doc, there can be only one Elite 10. Likewise he's forced a reduced number of Inter 5's by limiting it to 7. So the named rank system is now based on your comparative position versus the player base, rather than a fixed position based upon an assumed standardised skill expectation.

This idea seems pretty good, since people can still monitor the actual rank value to alude to how terribly bad Allegiance players are these days compared to 3 years ago; while at the same time, there will be some individuality amongst ranks, that allows -slightly- easier interpretation of their equivalent skill level.

And if this isn't Baker's idea, then it should be, dammit.

Let's just implement a king-of-the-hill type system where you can only gain rank by challenging the player above you to a duel!

Exo wrote:QUOTE (Exo @ Jul 16 2009, 08:06 PM) And if this isn't Baker's idea, then it should be, dammit.

Exo gets the award for seer of the moment.

My Hobby: Posting in General and waiting for somebody to geddit

ImmortalZ wrote:QUOTE (ImmortalZ @ Jul 16 2009, 11:48 AM) Because AS works natively in a 0-50 form and we're currently compressing to 0-30, which is less than ideal.

Explain why this is "less than ideal". What is ideal? If granularity is what you want, why stop at 50 ranks? Why not 100 or 1000?

Exo wrote:QUOTE (Exo @ Jul 16 2009, 12:06 PM) Ignore me (or ridicule me if need be) if I've gotten Baker's comments wrong; but hasn't he pointed to a variable system of applying the rank name, independent of the actual rank value.

Yes, it's the area where he and I agree on.

No one is higher than rank 39 on the unscaled Trueskill system. Baker's proposal is to make that appear as rank 50 in-game. My proposal is to make it appear as rank 30 in-game. Baker's proposal would require either a) more than 7 levels in a band or b) more bands or c) both. My proposal would not require changes to the labeling system (but wouldn't preclude it either).

Broodwich wrote:QUOTE (Broodwich @ Jul 16 2009, 11:49 AM) which was my other point

Yes, isn't it scary when we agree on something?

Making the top person "elite 10" makes no sense to me, because it handwaves that person as "the best an allegiance player can get." Elite 10 should be the theoretical position of "does not lose" while Newbie (0) should be the theoretical position of "has not won yet." If I understand Allegiance Skill correctly, it's impossible for everyone's allegiance skill rank to rise (as in, all of us get +10 mu or sigma or whichever greek symbol it is). So the system itself will ensure that we can't randomly all be Vet 1s even if we have a static system.

Also, we've demonstrated that the vast majority of players are in the "intermediate" zone (with intermediates 1 and 2 being the most populated ranks), which is where they should be.

This leads me to the conclusion that Baker, through sheer luck or design, accidentally managed to make a system that makes perfect sense in terms of naming conventions. I see nothing wrong with expanding it from 30 to 50 because hey, it already works as is, who cares if we take BP's first idea and just expand it (each rank would have 11 or 12 ranks in it, so novice 11, inter 12, vet 11, expert 12, with the rest being newbie buffer)?

Dont' fix what isn't broken.

What about a dynamic scaling:

example for 10 ranks:
30% to rank 0 (newbs, dead accounts)
10% rank 1-6
5% rank 7/8
rank 9 player #1