Free Allegiance Forums

There is no way of accounting for people who were here before ASGS started recording data short of fiddling the numbers. The numbers will not be fiddled. Like it or lump it, we're only going to use real data. The pre-stats people have a slight advantage in that regard.

Edit: If you're paying attention to your stack rating, it's working perfectly.

So it only accounts for the ranks of the players when I join not at the end of the game?

Grimmwolf_GB wrote:QUOTE (Grimmwolf_GB @ Jun 18 2009, 07:01 AM) So it only accounts for the ranks of the players when I join not at the end of the game?

Unfortunatly not. It takes an average from the time you start.

So if you start and it is even. Then half an hour you get +100 AS stack, but the game lasts for another hour. You get 1/3 of your game normal, 2/3 seriously fubar stacked.

afaik

I was ok with alleg skill until I heard that the average rank is a 10.

Me? Above average? `rk

MW makes a fine point (although I made the same point(s) years ago), AS (and (H)ELO) best works on small numbers of people where everyperson makes a difference. Take the average 15 vs 15 in Alleg and compare it with the 4 vs 4 of most Xbox games and your going to see that individual players have a much larger impact in the Xbox games rather then Allegiance. Many an Allegiance game I have won while not doing anything particularly useful (SysX vs ACE por examplé) yet I still get the rank pro points.

MW's other point of random games is also a big factor, good players in random games should win more then bad players in random games, also perhaps when MW says AB should be enforced I think it means the actual randomising instead of flushing for autobalance.

Baker your ranking system is good, is better then HELO no argument about that from me, but it's still not best suited for large team games, unfortunately there is no automated ranking system we can use (that I know of yet) that can work for Allegiance in it's current state. I still think a points based system would work but it would need a huge overhaul in how points are awarded (and a way it can't be exploited). Currently in real life large team games individual players are ranked on how effective they are regardless of the team score but until we get a brain to judge each player (spidey immortalized as a machine perhaps) every game AS will have to do

While it is true, your highness, that if you take one individual game, you could have contributed nothing to the win, but if you take into account your entire career, you've been useful moreso than not?

You don't fly with Sharp very much, do you TA?

It is funny, how all these esoteric arguments survive every effort by Baker....

I appreciate the implementation of Allegskill and think, that games became more even and ranks became quite accurate with Allegskill.


But back to the topic: I would like to see a working AB-system being developed and used for the average PU-games.



So here are some nerdish cookies for you, now get back to your work, Baker

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Jun 18 2009, 03:54 AM) MW makes a fine point (although I made the same point(s) years ago), AS (and (H)ELO) best works on small numbers of people where everyperson makes a difference. Take the average 15 vs 15 in Alleg and compare it with the 4 vs 4 of most Xbox games and your going to see that individual players have a much larger impact in the Xbox games rather then Allegiance. Many an Allegiance game I have won while not doing anything particularly useful (SysX vs ACE por examplé) yet I still get the rank pro points.

MW's other point of random games is also a big factor, good players in random games should win more then bad players in random games, also perhaps when MW says AB should be enforced I think it means the actual randomising instead of flushing for autobalance.

Baker your ranking system is good, is better then HELO no argument about that from me, but it's still not best suited for large team games, unfortunately there is no automated ranking system we can use (that I know of yet) that can work for Allegiance in it's current state. I still think a points based system would work but it would need a huge overhaul in how points are awarded (and a way it can't be exploited). Currently in real life large team games individual players are ranked on how effective they are regardless of the team score but until we get a brain to judge each player (spidey immortalized as a machine perhaps) every game AS will have to do

Queenie it works the same no matter the size of the game, it just takes LONGER to reach it's conclusion. Therefore your benefit for the win is smaller, and the more out of balance the two teams are the less you benefit. You can be spam in a can and win for sure for sure BUT if that is all you do every game your rank will reflect it over time. There are ways to job any ranking system a person can devise, and that is always the fly in the ointment.

It's the gut feeling comment. Stats and probability and gut feelings are anti-thesis. If you run the numbers it clearly shows that the ranking system works well and IMHO you aren't going to get much more accurate since we aren't bots and our contribution to a win ebbs and flows.


Your American Fan Your Majesty
MrChaos


edit: That being said if you run across a system that gets to players rank noticablely faster and as least as accurate by all means bring it forward, I'd be interested as hell to hear more about it. We looked at about 7 different systems at the beginning and this one was the best exactly because it worked for multiple random players, faster, and with a better prediction rate.

I'm not saying AS is crap, or that there is a better automated system out there. I'm just saying that it's still better suited towards smaller games then bigger ones. Also a big point to make AS more accurate would be for random games. Random balanced games would be nice but barring commanders if no player can choose what team they join it would most likely decrease stack and make AS more accurate as good and bad players would be more identifiable in results.

I am sure that AS just like (H)ELO also suffers from the fact that only the winning team gets a rank increase, thus Weed could fly for Weylin and still just get rank decrease while I fly for aarmstrong and get rank increase regardless that Weed podded me 50 times while piloting a bomber used to kill ops and miners while he assault mines the formerly enemy sectors but Weylin only buys bombers while aarm gets Missile Frigs and unfortunately not even Weed can take on 20 missile frigs although he does pod most of em.

However a system which can judge on individual merit of a player could work, currently the only system that does this is the points screen at the end of the game so if a system was to work it would have to require a change in how points are gained. Perhaps a system which combines both a points based system and AS might lead to interesting results so a player who has many points yet loses vs a stacked team (Weed) can still increase rank, but yes needs a change in how points are gained so not to exploit and ensure that even Bard can get points while helping his team to victory.