AllegSkill auto balance

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:58 pm

Then... how is it mandatory? /blink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":o" border="0" alt="blink.gif" />

sgt_baker · Post by **sgt_baker** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:00 pm

Stop splitting hairs. I work on the assumption that nothing is mandatory.

sgt_baker · Post by **sgt_baker** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:05 pm

FingerBang wrote:QUOTE (FingerBang @ Jan 17 2008, 04:12 PM) You do this and Allegiance will die. Do you know how many times there aren't 2 people who want to join? I do understand that this may be a "WISH" of yours to implement, but this has to be the worst idea i have heard. Sure if we had a large player base it might work, but with the number of ppl playing at any given time, it just wont work and alot of ppl will be stuck 'waiting' for this second person and leave in frustration, only to have someone want to join a team 5 minutes later., and so on..

So, to sum it up, THIS idea=worst idea in alleg history.
BUT please keep up the good work so far, except for this idea, dotn think about this idea any more, but others are ok to think of, but just not this one, ok? thanks..

Thanks FB for your insightful comment. Now, either I look really stupid or the idea of a timeout is something new and alien to me. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> Edit: For that matter, had you noticed the joining patterns just after a game is launched? Hm?

sgt_baker · Post by **sgt_baker** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:12 pm

/me picks a random game from the DB

11:33:40 Game Started
11:33:56 Join
11:33:57 Leave
11:34:12 Join - 16s
11:34:13 Join
11:34:17 Join - 4s
11:34:42 Join - >1min timeout
11:37:41 Join
11:38:05 Join - 26s
11:38:14 Join
11:38:26 Join -12s
11:39:03 Join
11:39:05 Join -2s
11:40:17 Join
11:40:18 Join -1s
11:40:29 Join
11:40:56 Join -27s
11:42:21 Join - >1min timeout
11:43:45 Join
11:43:58 Join - 13s

Edited for clarity and wait times

sgt_baker · Post by **sgt_baker** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:15 pm

And, excuse me for going out on a limb here, but this 'worst idea in the history of mankind' is worse how, exactly, then a system that prevents a player from joining indefinately?

Edit: Or a system that somehow believes that a 2 vs 8 is balanced. The mind boggles.

General_Freak · Post by **General_Freak** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:21 pm

Technical Wonder wrote:QUOTE (Technical Wonder @ Jan 17 2008, 04:58 PM) Then... how is it mandatory? /blink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":o" border="0" alt="blink.gif" />

The 'current implementation' Baker mentioned is not mandatory, but even if it were, it would still allow the pre-game switching of teams. With autobalance on, you can switch teams however you like but not in a way that makes the ranks imbalanced, or else Allegiance won't allow the game to start. You're probably thinking of the Button, which force balances the teams for you (and even then, players can still change/leave teams if they don't like the Button's decision).

sgt_baker · Post by **sgt_baker** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:39 pm

P.S. Both pre and post-launch AB are being tested againt RL data collected by TAG and ASGS. The idea is to discover problems before the system is unleashed unto the real world.

(although I would have thought this might be obvious by now I thought I'd just make it clear /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />)

TheVoid37 · Post by **TheVoid37** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:52 pm

All I know is:

Crazy Imbalance games are fun - world games for example.
Imbalance 1 games work and are fun.
AB games can be fun and nice to use it when we need to.

Please don't take choices away, Fix the current AB for sure, new system, even better, new ranking cool, interested to see the numbers it produces.

But IMHO there is no system out there that will accurately judge the skill of a player. Close, maybe, better than the current system, probably or possibly.

If two commanders are looking at their teams and realize its heavily leaning toward one side, click AFK to stop game from launching its that simple, then request a flush. We have systems in place to even teams out now, comms just need to use them.

sgt_baker · Post by **sgt_baker** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:00 pm

TheVoid37 wrote:QUOTE (TheVoid37 @ Jan 17 2008, 05:52 PM) But IMHO there is no system out there that will accurately judge the skill of a player. Close, maybe, better than the current system, probably or possibly.

This is exactly why Trueskill, Glicko and Glicko 2 maintain a 'belief' in their assessment of the player's skill. In a standard TS implementation a player's rank is always, even for the most experienced players, a 99% confidence of rank +- >=3 rank levels. The fact that these systems acknowledge the difficulty in accurately reflecting a player's skill by including this confidence interval is a big step in the right direction.

TheVoid37 · Post by **TheVoid37** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:36 pm

I don't know, I just can't see how a system can accurately project how good a player is overall in this game.

You can't measure how well someone places probes, that spot a constructor that allows me to kill it.
You can't measure how well someone places probes to spot bomber runs and miners.
You can't measure someones perception of another player, if VetA is podded repeatedly by VetB and becomes leiry of standing toe to toe with them how do you measure it?
You can't measure someones kill ratio in a turret as compared to an int or Sfig. IE how good they are with certain techs.
you can't measure how well someone rams a bomber to get it to the base sooner resulting in a base kill instead of none.
You can't measure how well someone places a TP2 drop.
You can't measure someones contribution to escorting a constructor and enabling it to build.
etc...

At least not that I know of /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

But I pleasantly look forward to being proven wrong.

There is just so much involved in allegiance and it all compounds greatly through the entire course of a game, I can't fathom how any automated system can measure it all; however, people can.