Official Proposal by Supreme Ruler Bacon:

General_Freak · Post by **General_Freak** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:02 pm

Pook wrote:QUOTE (Pook @ Nov 6 2006, 04:57 PM) If you're saying the problem is that someone's going to create an account, walk away and wait for 3 months, in an effort to exploit the system... that's a little silly and in fact pretty dark stupid.

A person who does this:

- Isn't as good as their rank indicates. This means they take more abuse for their mistakes.
- Gets no protection from booting. You screw up while you're still learning? Too bad.
- Unable to play on newbie servers. This is where newbies learn the basics of flight and the controls.

If you want to try and skip all that you can, but you're really doing yourself a giant disservice, all for a rank that will most likely PLUMMET because you're playing out of your league.

Could this be changed? Sure - I could base the modifier on the total number of hours played, or on kills even. The more you whore the faster you lose the adjuster. Do I think it's necessary - not really. The rank adjustment isn't for the public - it's for protection of the person who's learning the game.

The only one you're cheating is yourself.

All true, but that's not the problem. The problem is that people find it annoying to have vet 1s on their team with the skill of (0)s, and it does ruin the team balance: http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...ost&p=45830
Newbies can get bored of Allegiance, but can also change their minds later on.

And yes, starting off as a 15 is not easy. /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" /> I dropped to an 8 after a few weeks, hehe.

Post by **Raveen** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:08 pm

Pook/TE is there no way to change from 1 week per rank adjustment to 7 unique days logged in per rank adjustment?

Or 5 days or whatever you expect people to play during a week. As it stands it's unfair on newbies who can't play as much as they may like for all the reasons Pook listed above. Ok so there'll still be an imbalance between they guy who plays for 23 hours a day (Hi Vandal /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> ) and the guy who plays one game a day but it's less of an inequity IMO.

If it's too much hassle then don't bother but if it's a quick fix then is there a good reason against it that I'm not thinking of?

Post by **Pook** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:09 pm

While again I think it's the exception and not the rule... if it turns out to be something that becomes a common issue it'll be looked at.

Post by **Pook** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:11 pm

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Nov 6 2006, 11:08 AM) Pook/TE is there no way to change from 1 week per rank adjustment to 7 unique days logged in per rank adjustment?

Or 5 days or whatever you expect people to play during a week. As it stands it's unfair on newbies who can't play as much as they may like for all the reasons Pook listed above. Ok so there'll still be an imbalance between they guy who plays for 23 hours a day (Hi Vandal /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> ) and the guy who plays one game a day but it's less of an inequity IMO.

If it's too much hassle then don't bother but if it's a quick fix then is there a good reason against it that I'm not thinking of?

Right now a more important issue is that the ELO of the team isn't reflected properly because of the rank-based balancing.

For example, you have a team of all (0) who have an ELO of 1500. You fight a bunch of vets.

At the end of the game, ELO might say that YOU have the stack because your whole team was 1500's.

I'm currently exploring ways in which I can address this. (Oh, and don't listen if Tiger says that he told me so or anything to that effect.)

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:30 pm

Endri wrote:QUOTE (Endri @ Nov 6 2006, 10:52 AM) Correct me if I am wrong guys, but it seems to me that if we keep the current ELO system and employ team balancing then we end up in a condition where win loss ratio nears 50/50 (beacuse teams will be fairly balanced), meaning that everyone's rating will slowly even out (except for newcomers).

This version of AllegElo if implemented similar to TrueSkills, or Glicko I means: Consider yourself corrected.

Post by **Tigereye** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:53 pm

Pook wrote:QUOTE (Pook @ Nov 6 2006, 12:11 PM) (Oh, and don't listen if Tiger says that he told me so or anything to that effect.)

*whistles tunelessly*

--TE

Zapper · Post by **Zapper** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:20 pm

Bacon comes from Denmark... Period.

Zap

apochboi · Post by **apochboi** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:00 pm

Mmmm Danish Bancon /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> /wub.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":iluv:" border="0" alt="wub.gif" />

Bacon_00 · Post by **Bacon_00** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:36 pm

I haven't been keeping up w/ this thread, but I read most of it...

Pook, I understand that the kills = rank was more of a joke than anything, but I'm not an idiot. I don't think that kills should equal rank. I never said that.

What I think we do need, though, is a system that scores you based on your individual performance. Have the game keep track of nans, probes dropped, etc. and add that into the mix.

I'm trying to find the humor in your response to this, but I'm having difficulty not feeling a little bit pissed off. You act like I'm being totally unreasonable saying that ELO is flawed.

ELO is flawed. So is every other ranking system. However, I think that we can come up with a much less flawed system than ELO. One that is more "fun" and reflective of individuals instead of teams. People shouldn't be penalized because they get stuck with a crappy team.

I think I'm just going to give up, however. The Powers That Be (Pook/TE) have made their minds and I can see that there is no arguing without being treated like a 2-year-old.

edit:

An idea would also be to do what has been suggested and keep ELO private. Then, maybe sometime down the road, offer an actual stats system that lets people keep track of their kills/comm wins/etc.

I understand what the point of ELO is and what it's supposed to do, but I really do believe that in a game like Allegiance with a constantly fluctuating playerbase, it is never going to be very accurate.

Slevin · Post by **Slevin** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:48 pm

I think you're being quite unreasonable Bacon. While I am new here, and may not have a complete grasp of what this ranking crap does, I did not, however, pick up that Pook was treating YOU like a 2-year old. Some OTHER people may have made snappish and rude comments, and Pook meerely responded in kind.

I can understand, however, that some of your very valid points may have been undermined, but in the face of adversity, one may argue the sense in just giving up and walking away.

Personally, I'd like to hear more ideas from you. Seriously. Ignore what I said about that bacon stuff earlier, I was trying to pook humour at web names.