Free Allegiance Forums

I think the stack currently is a big problem. Inevitably, at one point in a game one team will have a slight stack advantage over the other.

People being people, they try to get into the "winning" team (no matter whether they're actually winning). Now what happens on #autobalance 1?
The only place for noobs to join without waiting way too long is the team that's being stacked against.
Our autobalance system leaves only two options: stacking or losing new players!

We need something that tries to balance both the number of players and the AllegSkill; balancing only one of those aspects isn't sufficient.

As a simple suggestion: on #autobalance 1, allow players with rank <5 to join both teams irrespective of player count. This allows newbies to join the stacked team, letting them play while increasing the stack only slightly. But at the same time, noobs joining the stacked team reduce the chances of vets joining the stacked team (as vets have to wait for player counts to even).
And even if this suggestion doesn't fix the stacking problem (it's hard to fix a people problem with a technical solution...), it'll fix the long wait times for new players.

Population is fine for summer imo

Also I blame Exp for long ass games

the.ynik wrote:QUOTE (the.ynik @ Jul 21 2010, 06:48 PM) As a simple suggestion: on #autobalance 1, allow players with rank <5 to join both teams irrespective of player count. This allows newbies to join the stacked team, letting them play while increasing the stack only slightly. But at the same time, noobs joining the stacked team reduce the chances of vets joining the stacked team (as vets have to wait for player counts to even).
And even if this suggestion doesn't fix the stacking problem (it's hard to fix a people problem with a technical solution...), it'll fix the long wait times for new players.

I think this is one of the best ideas in this thread; second only to the integrated voice chat, but probably way easier to implement.
I would modify it slightly though, instead of talking rank <5 say anyone with a (#) can join regardless of player count. One would than lose his/hers number after a set number of games played (say 50) or even better a set number of hrs played (say 30).

The reason numbers have dipped is because pickup games are terribad. The average skill in Allegiance has dropped so much it is pathetic. Cadet is also a shadow of what it used to be. We used to have some of the best guys in the game sharing their tips and secrets in the cadet program, now it is a bunch of craptastic monkeys with spreadsheets trying to train these newbs and doing a terrible job at it. I mean seriously, when P1 and Jarvis are cadet advisors you might as well just pack up your toys and go home.

You know why the edit Kumy - SCW

RedLion wrote:QUOTE (RedLion @ Jul 21 2010, 12:30 PM) I think this is one of the best ideas in this thread; second only to the integrated voice chat, but probably way easier to implement.
I would modify it slightly though, instead of talking rank <5 say anyone with a (#) can join regardless of player count. One would than lose his/hers number after a set number of games played (say 50) or even better a set number of hrs played (say 30).

I agree, this is good and implementable. Opened new topic in the dev zone.

http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...showtopic=58216

Kumquat wrote:QUOTE (Kumquat @ Jul 21 2010, 12:40 PM) Jarvis ... cadet advisors

Perhaps you should go do some homework.

Last I saw he was. Maybe I was thinking of Ogorass who still sucks.

lexaal wrote:QUOTE (lexaal @ Jul 21 2010, 01:30 AM) Change the uninstaller.

I wager not many people uninstall. They just never log in.

Duckwarrior wrote:QUOTE (Duckwarrior @ Jul 21 2010, 04:27 AM) I use Pico as my example for this. He says it is because he anti stacks a lot (which he undoubtedly does).

Pico doesn't play a lot. He's not on the leaderboard right now, but I am willing to bet he has an unusually high sigma. Due to the "conservative" rank of AllegSkill (where 3*sigma is subtracted from mu), every point or so of extra sigma results in about a 1.5 rank loss.

I anti-stack a lot too, but I'm probably one of the aforementioned tosspots.

QUOTE 3. If we are keeping AS (which inevtiably we will) then limit server sizes so that people can play with people of the same rank or the next level up/down. IE: Novice/Intermediate, Intermediate/Vet, Vet only, Open server.[/quote]

Simpler solution: raise the limit on the newbie server. The argument always is "well, they'll never learn there". Well, my take is that ever since the newbie server was effectively rendered useless, there's no safe place for clueless newbies to $#@! around until they decide they want to put the effort to get good at this game and play with the big boys.

PS: everyone please shut up about autobalance. If this gets forced on but no one solves the unequal commander problem first, that's a sure way to put a stake in the heart of Allegiance.

Newbies and novices do not care what you think AFS used to be like. Get your handles straight and stop insulting men like Notjarvis.

Koln wrote:QUOTE (Koln @ Jul 20 2010, 05:08 PM) Do you really see someone who likes to "brag" about him going up from rank 6 to rank 8 going anywhere in this community? All i would expect was some kind of the @#$%@#s we have around to pick on him and bash him. And then he'll leave and never come back. There are three ways to stay in this community: keeping a low profile, being inmune to bashing or being really good at it. That reduces drastically the number of potential players that would stay playing around, so even if we had a thousand ranks and give ranks out by time playing i don't think it would solve anything. I'd rather think of something like this:

No, I don't think I got my point across. I was going more for rewarding a player with a visible rank up to give them some positive reinforcement. Doing this on a logarithmic scale so that a new player gets a few ranks over the first week and then settles into gaining them more slowly over time (the way levels work in AD&D for instance) could prompt people to play more. What is so wrong about having people be competing to reach the top of the leader board? Stacking for one... Perhaps a better reward system for rank points could include ranking based on performance vs only the same people on your team, and ignore the win or loss or the other teams performance. This way you would not be penalized for joining the losing side, if you out performed everyone else on your team, then you are a "better player", even though you couldn't compete with the other team because they had the mk3 tech while you had a giga scout to work with. But, you were the best giga scout on your team of giga scouts.

Again, this visible rank would not be attached to allegskill, it would be just for player rewards. I'm just trying to think of some way to reward people for coming back to play the way other games do.