Free Allegiance Forums

Wasp, I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince them of the fundamental flaw that ELO is.

I think it's fairly obvious that Wasp knows what he's talking about. If I were the FAZ devs, I'd take a critical look at all of these anti-ELO posts and rethink implementing the system at all.

ELO works *great* if you have a game set up with individual players playing 1v1, and then mix the players up and have them all play each other. Whoever wins the most games is going to be ranked the highest. AWESOME system for that. Simple and straightforward.

It doesn't work, however, when you throw in variable team sizes, factions, tech paths, and all that other crap that is unbalanced in it's own ways, then try to tack on a rank to an individual person where the system never ONCE looks at *just* the individual.

Pook, you are obviously frustrated by repeating yourself in these anti ELO posts. I'm getting equally frustrated trying to convince you guys that it's not a good system to use to balance this game. It's going to cause nothing but anger and sour feelings amongst the playerbase, turn away newbies and old vets alike.

But, like I said, I can see that no matter how hard we argue ELO and no matter how many flaws we point out, it's going to be released, so I figure I should just stop wasting my time with these posts and find another game to play until Alleg gets a balance system that is actually worth my time.

since we all like code. here is a bit i wrote for you: hmm... looks like an infinate loop to me.

_SRM_PsycHosis wrote:QUOTE (_SRM_PsycHosis @ Nov 26 2006, 12:40 AM) since we all like code. here is a bit i wrote for you:

Code: Select all

begin
  autobalance.works = false;
  elo = random(16);
  repeat
    playgames(random(1000),elo);
    if elo = skill then autobalance.works = true;
    if elo !=skill then tweak(autobalance,elo);
  until (elo = skill) and (autobalance.works = true);
end;

hmm... looks like an infinate loop to me.

Psy you forgot something.
I think it will work now /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Cunnuk wrote:QUOTE (Cunnuk @ Nov 25 2006, 11:52 PM) Psy you forgot something.

Code: Select all

begin
  autobalance.works = false;
  elmo = random(16);
  repeat
    playgames(random(1000),elmo);
    if elmo = skill then autobalance.works = true;
    if elmo != whine/bitch/complain/carebear skill; then tweak(autobalance,elmo);
  until (elmo = skill) and (autobalance.works = true);
end;

I think it will work now /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

while that almost works as good as elo, i think it should be correctly stated

Hell, I'm not frustrated... for the most part I'm not even listening. It's the same thing over and over... when someone has a viable alternative spec'd out then I'll devote some time to look at it.

Bacon, does this count as your bi-annual "I'm quitting Allegiance" post or is this on the house? /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

if he were, he should do so in the correct way (there is a presedent in these matters)

"we will have stats in two weeks"

Pook,

The viable alternative is to leave it alone. Is that really so bad?

Wasp wrote:QUOTE (Wasp @ Nov 26 2006, 08:56 AM) Pook,

The viable alternative is to leave it alone. Is that really so bad?

That's up to you guys. I don't play anymore because the games suck. I had hoped that once we got rid of stacking I'd get to play a decent game once in awhile, but hey I've got my 360 so you guys do whatever you want.

/wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

Pook,

I should state, that I too, would like to see an autobalance system that could even the teams making games more unpredictable. But the solution needs to be a natural one,....players WANTING to compete against their equal/better(s).

Let's boil this down to the bone.......what we're really after is an environment that doesn't encourage stacking. Stacking is the real culprit here. Birds of a feather stick together so you're always going to find vets flying with vets and noobs always picking blue.

I DO think autobalance is going to be essential to creating the likelyhood of a game lasting longer with a more unpredictable outcome. However it must utilize a rank that is accurate. With a rank voting system, rank would become so much more precise than could ever be determined using statistics. Plus you also get this wonderful bonus to the rank voting system.....

If a player is ranked by another (voting council members), his best chance of getting noticed (rank improvement) is to do something noticable! If I'm in your face every game whoring your miners and cons and capping/bombing your bases, you're gonna take notice much quicker than if I'm on your own team protecting miners while you're off bombing. On the other hand, if I'm in your face defending MY miners, cons and preventing you from capping our bases and so on..., you'll also take notice more quickly than if I was on your own team. If that notice gets me into a position (eligible) of ranking others, I'll pursue it. This also deters using hider names as you're less likely to get noticed if you're always switching names. Another bonus is that the council is always being renewed thus perpetually providing members. The larger the council becomes, the more accurate the ranking is thus the more effective autobalance will be.

Bottom line...

We need to create the environment where we have negated the stacking initiative while simotaneously encouraging competitive play. Rank voting does both.

What about the guy flying a scout round probing every sector, getting every enemy bomb run eyed, foiling all their stealthyness? Do you keep track of who dropped which probe when? Do you think that anyone does?