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.
Ranks are now based on ELO
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.
-
Greator_SST
- Posts: 277
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 7:00 am
...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" />
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" />
...yea
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
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.
Code: Select all
NOT COUNTED: Game imbalance was excessive
Team Name Team ELO Opponent ELO Score Expected Outcome
Freedom Stackers 1428 1700 0 0.172822
- 1700 1428 1 0.827178
Last edited by jgbaxter on Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n.b. I may not see a forum post replied to me or a pm sent to me for weeks and weeks...
-
GhostMachine
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:59 am
- Location: \m/ Podville \m/, NJ, USA
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
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
The Allegiance community currently hates their sysadmin because he is doing: [Too Much] [____________|] [Too Little]
Current reason: Removing the PayPal contribute page. Send Bitcoin instead: 1EccFi98tR5S9BYLuB61sFfxKqqgSKK8Yz. This scale updates regularly.