AllegSkill auto balance

[Orion]

QUOTE (sgt_baker @ Jan 16 2008, 02:11 PM) AllegSkill tracks commander rank in addition to player rank. The goal was to enable equally balanced commanders in addition to teams. I've recently been informed by the dev team that there are difficulties with passing multiple 'big' (doubles, or decimals) numbers between the ASGS database and the allegiance server. I'm under the impression that this might impede the commander balancing to the point of non-existance. I'm far from happy about this.

On the other hand: I've always stipulated that joining any given team should be optional. If auto balance assigns you to a team you should have the option to reject the assignment. It makes life faaaaar more difficult for the developers, yet the players aren't alienated in the process.

lol, what if you dont want to comm?

[sgt_baker]

QUOTE (Technical Wonder @ Jan 17 2008, 03:04 AM) lol, what if you dont want to comm?

Nothing is gonna force you to comm. The idea was a simple one: If everyone can see that comm A is miles better then comm B, perhaps it's time to find a new comm B. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

[sgt_baker]

QUOTE (BackTrak @ Jan 16 2008, 10:10 PM) This must be a difference between the new balencer and the current balencer? If one side's combined number totals 25 (a 4 + a 21) and the other side's total is 8 (a 5 + a 3), then if only 0's join the 8, will it allow many 0's to join the side with low combined number total?

I'm taking combined number as the magic hash of mu and sigma.

If it didn't then the side with the 25 can just +1 thier way to immense stack?

There are clear and known issues with the current balancer. The new balancer is just that: new. Not a rehash of the current one. Not a subtle recode. Completely, absolutely different in every possible way. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

[BackTrak]

Baker, does this mean that people would be locked out of joining either side until rank equals out?

BTW - I'm perfectly ok with a "Wait for the final paper on the solution", or "Wait and see" answers as well. /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

Take my previous example:

Team 1: 4, 21

Team 2: 8, 7

The next players arrive in this order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 17

Under the current AB, this would yield:

Team 1: 4, 21, 5

Team 2: 8, 7, 1, 2, 3, 4, 17

Under the new AB, how would this look? Would people be blocked from joining? I did work out a reasonable balancer at one time in C#, if you are interested. It's on allegiance.chi-town.com

Thanks for all the info!

[sgt_baker]

QUOTE (BackTrak @ Jan 17 2008, 03:46 PM) Baker, does this mean that people would be locked out of joining either side until rank equals out?

BTW - I'm perfectly ok with a "Wait for the final paper on the solution", or "Wait and see" answers as well. /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

Take my previous example:

Team 1: 4, 21

Team 2: 8, 7

The next players arrive in this order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 17

Under the current AB, this would yield:

Team 1: 4, 21, 5

Team 2: 8, 7, 1, 2, 3, 4, 17

Under the new AB, how would this look? Would people be blocked from joining? I did work out a reasonable balancer at one time in C#, if you are interested. It's on allegiance.chi-town.com

Thanks for all the info!

One of the AB modes I'm looking at I call 'strict mode'. It essentially waits until it can add players in pairs, so would yield:

Code: Select all

Team1: 4, 21, 1, 3, 5
Team2: 8, 7 , 2, 4, 17

Obviously there are waiting issues with such a setup, and that's something I'm wary of in general. Really I'd like to give some more solid answers at this point but post-launch AB is still in development, and certain RL factors are detracting significantly from this effort. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

[FingerBang]

QUOTE (sgt_baker @ Jan 17 2008, 10:03 AM) One of the AB modes I'm looking at I call 'strict mode'. It essentially waits until it can add players in pairs, so would yield:

You do this and Allegiance will die. Do you know how many times there aren't 2 people who want to join? I do understand that this may be a "WISH" of yours to implement, but this has to be the worst idea i have heard. Sure if we had a large player base it might work, but with the number of ppl playing at any given time, it just wont work and alot of ppl will be stuck 'waiting' for this second person and leave in frustration, only to have someone want to join a team 5 minutes later., and so on..

So, to sum it up, THIS idea=worst idea in alleg history.


BUT please keep up the good work so far, except for this idea, dotn think about this idea any more, but others are ok to think of, but just not this one, ok? thanks..

[Orion]

QUOTE (sgt_baker @ Jan 17 2008, 03:39 AM) Nothing is gonna force you to comm. The idea was a simple one: If everyone can see that comm A is miles better then comm B, perhaps it's time to find a new comm B. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Yeah, but what happens when all the comm B's have been autobalanced onto Comm A's team?

[badpazzword]

I agree with "stats count == autobalance". I do not agree with "autobalance always on, no matter what". Hence my no.

[sgt_baker]

QUOTE (Striker & Adam @ Jan 13 2008, just after buying a shipyard. By accident.))NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB[/quote]

Fixed it for ya.

[sgt_baker]

QUOTE (Technical Wonder @ Jan 17 2008, 04:27 PM) Yeah, but what happens when all the comm B's have been autobalanced onto Comm A's team?

The current implementation of pre-launch AB doesn't prevent player swapping before the game is launched. I see no reason why this would change /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />