I played alleg for months and have a beautifull (0)

Rand0m_Numb3r · Post by **Rand0m_Numb3r** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:38 pm

i just made my sig last night nothing official yet i have to finish some stuff i need to deal with first

Vlymoxyd · Post by **Vlymoxyd** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:41 pm

Could ELO be something like the minimum between:
-Real ELO rank
-MIN(((Integral(the hours player/ 15)) - 1 );9) + MAX(Total ELO gained;0)

I'm not experienced with the ranking system enough to choose the right numbers, but I think that what I suggested is a good logic.
The results would be:
Newbies would gain a rank every time they play 15 hours untill they reach rank 9(Or unless their ELO rank becomes inferior). It would take them 135 hours. I think that 135 hours are enough to give ELO enough data about the player.
Newbies who wins a lot would also gain faster ranks, those who lose would not be penalised untill their ELO rank becomes inferior
Also, I think that that the time spent playing allegiance means more than the age of the account.

To have an even better system, I think that newbies should gain the 1st ranks fasters than the lasts.

Rakinite · Post by **Rakinite** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:54 pm

Myself, I think it'd be useful to be able to see the account age in-game. Hard to explain why, but we'd be more sure of who just started and who just has low ELO... anyone with me?

badpazzword · Post by **badpazzword** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:36 pm

Why just don't separate ELO and newbie tag?

Player[NewbieNumber](Skill)

Example:

From (say) Bacn(0) To (say) Bacn[0](15) (shown ingame as "Bacn[0]" with a [15] in the skill column)
From (say) Beepmaster(0) To (say) Beepmaster[14](13).

If you don't like the double-digit newbie number just a little proportion will bring it back to the old 0-8 range.

Question: Ok, genius. And autobalance? How about that?
Answer: It has been suggested that Autobalance should get the effective ELO score instead of the truncated value to avoid problems. (For example, right now I'm very near to 1600 ELO so I'd bring 90+ points of difference between ingame ELO and effective ELO. But this is not the point of the post.) The ELO score may be newbie-adjusted during this phase.

PS: Heh. I remember enough french to make out what's in that site of yours, BeepMaster. Looks cool.

Angela Liu · Post by **Angela Liu** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:40 pm

beepmaster wrote:QUOTE (beepmaster @ Feb 21 2007, 01:11 AM) Hello /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

I played alleg for months, i scored 1, then 2, to 5 but now i'm (0)...
That may not be a problem if few players/commanders accept newbies... But a lot of commanders dont accept players with that score...
For example : this morning I cant play Allegiance cause I'm (0).

I know you stats problems... but now its more than that cause few people can't play at all... people who played allegiance for months !

just to let you know beepmaster you're certainly not the only one. If you actually read my posts about rank you'll see that i've played 3 and more month and still have a beautiful, round (0).

Actually i've seen people laugh at me yesterday as i'm a squadded (0) player /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> Though squad tag do help a lot when you're trying to join a game.

I know how you feel when you can't get accepted. Actually 2 days ago i was a (0) without any tag and nobody wants to accept me. Occationaly if i play with my hider (which don't have the @ACE only have a (0)) people still don't accept me. It's more of a "look" thing rather than actually your skill in game.

If you have time read my topic about rank and see people's reply. That helps a lot when it comes to feelings.

FlingPu · Post by **FlingPu** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:55 pm

I had the same problem after the last update. I went from newbie(0) through novice(3), and ended up at zero again. When I started playing Allegiance, I convinced myself that I didn't care about ELO or rank, but I missed it when it was gone. Now it's a daily irritation. *looks* GRRRR! Still zero. Ok, !@#$ it, just play. I finish a winning game and I look at the stats to be reminded that my team's hard work was rewarded with a no count. Then I remember that most games are set to stats off. So when am I going to move up in the world! /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> Somehow my love of shooting things in zero-G has turned into a deadlocked numbers game and a seniority system.

I'm not the most patient person but I do ok in this regard. I'm wondering what the overall impact is on the vast majority of new players. Most games toss you a rank or level for finishing the tutorial and another after a couple hours of play. Then the increases taper the more you advance. So initially, you feel like you're making progress and then you work harder for advancement as time goes on. I'm curious of the number of new players that silently quit after their patience is worn thin and they are still at the bottom of the ladder playing against some of the most amazing pilots this game has to offer.

Really the only time ELO interrupts my play time is when I can't get on a team because of stacking paranoia. Last night, 4 newbies where trying to get on 2 teams. The lowest ELO team commander, who had open positions, was holding off for vets. I understand that a commander can't discern the imbalance after the game has started and I respect this though I don't like it. For the record, I'm not blaming anyone or the system. It's just an observation that I witness time and time again.

I realize that ELO isn't perfect and that it's difficult to balance the players time in game versus their productive results and measurable skill. I've read several threads with a wide range of opinions about how ELO should work and each one has it's merits. As a developer, I would be asking myself what solutions benefit the audience that I want playing this game. Which solutions benefit the most players? How can this be as fair as possible? Do I favor the seasoned players who have been playing consistently since beta? Do I favor the best players irregardless of age? Do I make it easier for newer players to settle into the game? I'd offer my opinions and ideas, but I lack 7 years allegiance history and the statistical data to form an educated theory. Since this is a free game and a non-profit venture, I'm just thankful for what's offered.

Given the limited player base for Allegiance, everyone is packed into the same sandbox and it's kindergarden rules! It makes the divisions very one dimensional. You're either a noob at the bottom, a voob in between, or you're at the top of food chain.

Sorry for the length. /doh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":doh:" border="0" alt="doh.gif" /> I had more to say than an anticipated. *reminds self not to post right after work* /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Edit: My assumptions on stats off are incorrect...ignore. And, todays update removed my newb tag. I guess I'll have to watch my act now.

Mordechaj · Post by **Mordechaj** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:05 am

it's not so bad to be a newb, really. especially when you get better, but still hold the low rank. then ppl will not consider you as a threat, and will thus be vunerable if you take advantage of that.

yeah, it's hard to enter the game sometimes, and can take a pretty while, but it dosen't happen really often (at least i hope it dosen't)

Angela Liu · Post by **Angela Liu** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:10 am

Mordechaj wrote:QUOTE (Mordechaj @ Feb 21 2007, 05:05 PM) it's not so bad to be a newb, really. especially when you get better, but still hold the low rank. then ppl will not consider you as a threat, and will thus be vunerable if you take advantage of that.

yeah, it's hard to enter the game sometimes, and can take a pretty while, but it dosen't happen really often (at least i hope it dosen't)

well it happens a lot when you're a (0) and there's like about 10 (0)'s in the same game. Even if you get accepted you can't really do anything in game as they won't count on you to do ANYTHING. Let's say there's a bomb run and they ask for 2 nan. okay... a vet takes one and i'll go for the other. While we have two the commander will shout:" i asked for 2 nans and where are they?"

Lol i convinced myself a few weeks ago that i don't care about elo so my life is back to where it start /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

Stain_Rat · Post by **Stain_Rat** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:16 am

*Stain_Rat adorns monocle and top hat.

I propose the formulae take in to account a person's worth in East India spices and the speed of their motorcoach! What say you to this proposition?

Malicious Wraith · Post by **Malicious Wraith** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:41 pm

jgbaxter wrote:QUOTE (jgbaxter @ Feb 21 2007, 09:24 AM) Right now players get;

-15 to their rank when they start
-7 after 6 months
-0 after 12 months
iirc
I'd love a more staggered approach.

0 months -15 rank
1 months -14 rank
2 months -13 rank
3 months -12 rank
4 months -10 rank
5 months -9 rank
6 months -8 rank
7 months -7 rank
8 months -5 rank
9 months -4 rank
10 months -3 rank
11 months -2 rank
12 months -1 rank

Or better yet, add age to a maximum of +15 to the rank penalty.

That's just my suggestion, whatever works for you guys. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Crap! That makes me a 25!