Free Allegiance Forums

Adam4 wrote:QUOTE (Adam4 @ Jul 15 2009, 03:15 PM) It should mean more balanced games due to the system having a higher degree of resolution. Baker will be along shortly with the full explanation I guess.

I see your point. The system will be more sensitive according to numbers. But when it comes to usefulness in game, the math of ranks doesn't work as you all know.

You need [2 average players | 1 average player + 2 or 3 newbies] to compensate a vet's rank. Which can result in an imbalance in number of players easily that works against the balance of the game (especially in small games). Newbs are ranked too low (although there are some useful ones) and vets are ranked too high (although there are some useless ones ).

My point is if we can reduce the gap between the ranks of the low-average-high players somehow then it will be possible to balance the game both in quality and the quantity of the players.

And finally, I dont care much about titles of ranks.

At what level are people going to be considered "vets" ? The top and bottom bands are easy (noob and expert) but the bands in the middle get dicey depending on where the average falls, I think. For ego purposes (important so that the majority don't bash your system just because they suck at the game and the system tells them the truth) it would probably be best to put the "vet" tag where the average falls, and then use tags like maybe enh vet and/or adv vet and/or intermediate vet to descriminate.

0.. 5 Newbie
-----------------
6.. 15 Novice
-----------------
16..25 Intermediate
-----------------
26..35 Veteran
-----------------
36..45 Expert
-----------------
45..50 Elite


Times your current rank by 1.67 to show where you'd be.


Other random related thoughts.


1. Instead of AS point total shown for teams, an average might be good?
2. Use a floating calculation so that only the last 1000 games are used to determine rank, or (easier) ignore the first 1000 games (as they are replaced).
3. Change the game sizes that count from 10 players (5v5) to 20 players (10v10), possibly adjust them retroactively in stages 6v6, 8v8, 10v10.

The current 30-point system has more than enough granularity. Why does the fact that Trueskill is normalized around 50 matter? Why not multiply by 2 and make it a 100 point system while we're at it?

I would much rather see the energy put into adjusting the rank labels to be more meaningful. There was massive rank deflation when AS was introduced and as a result virtually no one is a vet. Plus, I'm 0.3 points away from Vet 1 and it's pissing me off.

I did intend to post more but have been busy all day. This is set to continue through this evening to tomorrow. I will get back to this thread, though.

B

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Jul 15 2009, 10:56 AM) it would probably be best to put the "vet" tag where the average falls, and then use tags like maybe enh vet and/or adv vet and/or intermediate vet to descriminate.

Ooh! I want a lxy vet tag!

just go back to the original ranking system that MS used, why fix something that was never broken.

i hate AS and it does not rank properly.

Just to be clear: All AllegSkill calculations take place in 0 - 50 space. It's only the number that is displayed to the end user that is mapped linearly to 0 - 30. Changing ove to 0 - 50 will not somehow magically create more stacking since everyones rank will increase by the same amount (rank *= 5/3).

The more interesting points here concern the distribution of the rank labels. To sum up: Why do we have nine rank bands (expert) for a population of three players? Seem like a bit of a waste of label space to me. Either way, this wasn't intended to cause as much rank paranoia as I sense is taking place. The most noticable change would be everyone's rank going up by 66%. What we choose to do with the names of the extra 20 rank levels that are created really doesn't make much difference to gameplay, does it?

To narrow it down, we have two simple choices:

a) Just make the existing bands wider by adding numbers: Expert10, 11 and so on, or
b) Create two (or more or less) newly names bands with sensible names.

And an option which requires more debate:

c) Change the distribution of the current/new bands to more accurately reflect the number of players in any given band.

B

There is should be two rank names based around where I fall within it. Sucks or Doesn't Suck with whatever my rank is in AllegSkill being the cut off between the two names. So it would look like this:

MrChaos is a 14 out of 50 then everyone over 14 has the rank name: Doesn't Suck. Ranks 14 and below have the name Sucks

Option C makes the most sense. We should probably get one of the number geeks to make a distribution curve where x=rank and y=# players and base it on that.