hey baker
in that study, did you assume correlation between effect of commanding was constant across all commanding skills? my bet just from playing would be that while good comms don't help their teams, very bad comms sink their teams consistently.
ranking system
i prose this to you another what, what if bad comms, draw bad teams, and therefore lose because their teams suck? if you have the stack, even a bad comm can winLykourgos wrote:QUOTE (Lykourgos @ Dec 29 2007, 11:49 PM) hey baker
in that study, did you assume correlation between effect of commanding was constant across all commanding skills? my bet just from playing would be that while good comms don't help their teams, very bad comms sink their teams consistently.
-
takingarms1
- Posts: 3052
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:00 am
My bet is that #mutiny will fix this issue.
Last edited by takingarms1 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"You give my regards to St. Peter. Or, whoever has his job, but in hell!"
- - - -
- - - -
Ooops, forgot about this thread /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
Quick answer: Yes, there is a correlation between crappy comms attracting crappy teams. I've made some changes to the filters which determine which games are valid for ranking recently, and you've just reminded me that I need to recalc this too /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
Quick answer: Yes, there is a correlation between crappy comms attracting crappy teams. I've made some changes to the filters which determine which games are valid for ranking recently, and you've just reminded me that I need to recalc this too /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
Granary Sergeant Baker - Special Bread Service (Wurf - 13th Oct 2011)
[I realise people are pretty committed to the allegskill project, but I wanted to throw this into the discussion.]
I tried to find if this has been tried, but couldn't find the info.
What about simply taking the score a player has at the end of the game, adding them up and dividing by the number of games played (obviously only those games that counted, since there are criteria when they don't).
If the win/loss of the team should be involved, then halve the points people on the losing side receive. This would at least address the current problem, where both teams play well, and there are brilliant efforts on both sides... but only those ultimately on the winning side get any credit for their efforts.
I tried to find if this has been tried, but couldn't find the info.
What about simply taking the score a player has at the end of the game, adding them up and dividing by the number of games played (obviously only those games that counted, since there are criteria when they don't).
If the win/loss of the team should be involved, then halve the points people on the losing side receive. This would at least address the current problem, where both teams play well, and there are brilliant efforts on both sides... but only those ultimately on the winning side get any credit for their efforts.
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
Adept,
There's little to no relationship to in-game points and contribution to victory. Killing an enemy ref is worth as many points as killing a tech base. I'm sure that you'd agree that the latter contributes more to the victory. Also, the bomber is awarded the points for the kill, but all the folks on the nan train that supported him to make it possible get zero points.
Picking up tech is awarded points, but there's no differentiation between tech that your team can actually use, and tech that it can't. I'm sure that you'd agree that gatt2 is generally more valuable to your team than retro booster, or Hunter 2 (if you don't go tac).
The key, I think, in creating a ranking system is the ability to measure and quantify the essence of skill. What constitutes "skill" in Allegiance is the problem. It's very difficult to define and even more difficult to measure given the resources available to us. I don't have a statistical background, so I couldn't even take a stab at it. Others here do, so I look forward to seeing their work once they're satisfied that they have a workable method.
There's little to no relationship to in-game points and contribution to victory. Killing an enemy ref is worth as many points as killing a tech base. I'm sure that you'd agree that the latter contributes more to the victory. Also, the bomber is awarded the points for the kill, but all the folks on the nan train that supported him to make it possible get zero points.
Picking up tech is awarded points, but there's no differentiation between tech that your team can actually use, and tech that it can't. I'm sure that you'd agree that gatt2 is generally more valuable to your team than retro booster, or Hunter 2 (if you don't go tac).
The key, I think, in creating a ranking system is the ability to measure and quantify the essence of skill. What constitutes "skill" in Allegiance is the problem. It's very difficult to define and even more difficult to measure given the resources available to us. I don't have a statistical background, so I couldn't even take a stab at it. Others here do, so I look forward to seeing their work once they're satisfied that they have a workable method.
You are of course correct on all the above.FreeBeer wrote:QUOTE (FreeBeer @ Jan 2 2008, 08:12 PM) <snip>
Others here do, so I look forward to seeing their work once they're satisfied that they have a workable method.
If it works even in part it will be very impressive indeed.
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
Will the system in development still be of the
* Be on the winning team = gain rank
* Be on the losing team = lose rank
kind? If so, I think I'll still have problems with it. Flawed though it is, the built in points system of Allegiance at least gives some credit to people on both sides. It's not right that playing a brilliant 2 hour game and just losing in the end still only means losing. /blink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":o" border="0" alt="blink.gif" />
* Be on the winning team = gain rank
* Be on the losing team = lose rank
kind? If so, I think I'll still have problems with it. Flawed though it is, the built in points system of Allegiance at least gives some credit to people on both sides. It's not right that playing a brilliant 2 hour game and just losing in the end still only means losing. /blink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":o" border="0" alt="blink.gif" />
Last edited by Adept on Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
