Free Allegiance Forums

As most of you have been aware, when the 3rd update to Allegiance was released in December all of our statistics were wiped. Since then, our ranks have been based off of the "age" of our accounts until enough games have been played to base an accurate rank from our experience.

Well, that time has come.

When you next log in, your rank will be based off of your experience in all games played since R3 went out. From here on, your ranks should be relatively stable and rise/fall as you win/lose.

Keep in mind that ranks may still be recalculated in the future in the event a problem is found.

Are stats being recorded for games that do not use *autobalance*?

Ozricosis wrote:QUOTE (Ozricosis @ Feb 1 2007, 04:14 AM) Are stats being recorded for games that do not use *autobalance*?

Stats are recorded for every game.

Will the stats COUNT? Yes, unless:

- The stats count flag is turned off.
- Game was < 5 minutes.
- Game didn't have at least 10 players for half the game.
- Winning team's expected outcome was > 70%.

I think that's all of them.

To be honest I haven't played in a very long time - I think that the autobalance controls the stats count flag automatically - i.e. if you turn off autobalance then stats don't count.

...I really hope all our commanders and players give autobalance a try. And sure, if you lose a game it'll be the whipping boy. But hopefully we'll all remember that there have been plenty of whipping boys in the past to whine about.

GIVE AUTOBALANCE A CHANCE!!! Or else I'll write a song about it /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

autobalance doesn't work.

This is the third game I've been in where we've been down 4 players and even though elos are more or less the same, a NOOB CAN STILL KILL YOU if there are 4 of them extra. Albeit our kiba completely rocks, but we the games are horribly lost.

For purposes of autobalance newbies should be considered a (5) even if they are only (0-4). However I think that they are currently considered a (1), at the very least, have (0) and (1) be considered (2)'s. It's insane.

Thank-you for the hard work, autobalance CAN work, with adjustments. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />


P.S. 2 of the "autobalanced" games were horribly stacked says elo.
Team ID ID:44030 and ID:44031

I played two games today with autobalance on, and both ended up near 80% win percentage for my team.

Something is messed up with the system... there is no reason that it should get to that bad of a stack if it were working.

it kinda works, I mean theoritically, and by the numbers is sorted out great!

then it put aarmstrong, myself, and weedman on the team of the better comm...

I never complained at that result /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

yes the autobalance is f00ked up. I wish you best of luck to fixxx it.

Well, the algorithm isn't written to make dead-even teams all the time. That's impossible. It is, however, designed to prevent "excessive" stacking.
It starts enforcing newb/vet joining when the ranksums are too far apart.

Perhaps that threshold is too high.

It doesn't prevent the forms of balancing we've used for the last 6 years (picking teams, and comms accepting/denying joiners evenly) so we can still keep games balanced ourselves instead of relying on it. It will give us time to play with it a bit more and see how it handles more 'real' games.

We may have to lower the threshold, or make all players <5 count as 5 to help mitigate the 30 (1)s vs 3 (10)s problem... or something else, or a combination of a few things. It'll be more clear once the system is used a bit longer.

--TE

My age based rank was 12 but my new elo rank is (4), does that mean I really really suck (possible) or that I haven't played many games that counted?