Free Allegiance Forums

KlngArthur is a different player than KingArthur.

KlgnArthur let guns22 have his account in Allegiance and other games they were such good buddies. KingArthur is just a perpetual voob

Typhoone wrote:QUOTE (Typhoone @ Dec 5 2007, 10:25 AM) Why not just make a command based leaderboard?

Ty.

That what I suggested ages ago, something like helo now except only games you command would fall in that category. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

jgbaxter wrote:QUOTE (jgbaxter @ Dec 5 2007, 04:53 PM) That what I suggested ages ago, something like helo now except only games you command would fall in that category. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

the downside to this is the small 5v5 kinds of games, which honestly don't count towards skill at all, especially on insane/stupid settings (like out9/BigGame Rix vs Bios on Brawl)

The hardest part would be preventing a newbie server comm/voob small game (stacked settings/teams) from appearing on the list

Well that's another can of worms.

First 5v5 games aren't allegiance. I know originally they were used as a minimum as we had few games to draw on and need people to gain elo (then). I'm sure changing the minimum for a game to count to 10v10 (min 20 players total) is good on many fronts, to me it would be a wonderful thing if we changed the database to not count games under 20 players for helo, then we recalc.

And I still think we need at the least to have helo+AllegAge averaged to give anywhere near an accurate ranking system. Last time i polled that we had majority interest in the idea of using AllegAge as a governor (helo can't exceed AllegAge), I'm sure if we did a poll on asgs about averaging it (less controversial) something to the effect of;

"Do you support averaging AllegAge (experience) and Helo (success) to determine a players rank?" Yes/No


It would pass by 2/3 - 3/4 support.

n.b. I did not equate Helo with skill, just success, as that's what it measures. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

jgbaxter wrote:QUOTE (jgbaxter @ Dec 6 2007, 03:19 PM) First 5v5 games aren't allegiance. I know originally they were used as a minimum as we had few games to draw on and need people to gain elo (then). I'm sure changing the minimum for a game to count to 10v10 (min 20 players total) is good on many fronts, to me it would be a wonderful thing if we changed the database to not count games under 20 players for helo, then we recalc.

I like it in concept, but there is a peripheral issue here. I have observed in the past that comms will hold out at a 4v4, not wanting the game to count. Not too often, but sometimes. Now imagine a game where it launches 7v7, one side sees a loss coming, and holds it at 9v10 from then out. Not cool. Likewise people bailing out after a bad open have more chance of making the game not count. Just brings the threshold for exploitation closer to the average game size.

People can't be stopped from exploiting, only punished for it.

Also remember, it would be 10v10 for the majority of the game... so that does help mitigate the issue quite a bit.

I tried to play today but unfortunately it appears that the millenia spent gathering dust has done tricks on my joystick. Still, Allegiance is like riding a bike. After 5+ years of domination, you don't suddenly become a mortal just by not actively playing for a few years. I have occasionally played under hiders and have observed that all but a few of the best commanders that are listed in your so called tier1 still make brutal mistakes and fail to take control of the situation or capitalize on an opportunity in an appropiate manner all too often, causing me to want to reach out through the screen and pull out their teeth.

Grey_Slayer wrote:QUOTE (Grey_Slayer @ Dec 9 2007, 09:13 PM) FEAR ME!!!

lets make that simple for the new players 'round here

Grey_Slayer wrote:QUOTE (Grey_Slayer @ Dec 9 2007, 09:13 PM) I tried to play today but unfortunately it appears that the millenia spent gathering dust has done tricks on my joystick. Still, Allegiance is like riding a bike. After 5+ years of domination, you don't suddenly become a mortal just by not actively playing for a few years. I have occasionally played under hiders and have observed that all but a few of the best commanders that are listed in your so called tier1 still make brutal mistakes and fail to take control of the situation or capitalize on an opportunity in an appropiate manner all too often, causing me to want to reach out through the screen and pull out their teeth.

No one is perfect. We work with what we are given. This isnt called the "Grey Slayer's perfect Tier I who Never make Mistakes"

This is the Spidey "People are Tier I who do the best out of all the current commanders according to the criteria"

Sorry to disappoint but I am sure you will take it out on me in the DM Tourny /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

jgbaxter wrote:QUOTE (jgbaxter @ Dec 7 2007, 09:19 AM) And I still think we need at the least to have helo+AllegAge averaged to give anywhere near an accurate ranking system. Last time i polled that we had majority interest in the idea of using AllegAge as a governor (helo can't exceed AllegAge), I'm sure if we did a poll on asgs about averaging it (less controversial) something to the effect of;

"Do you support averaging AllegAge (experience) and Helo (success) to determine a players rank?" Yes/No
It would pass by 2/3 - 3/4 support.

n.b. I did not equate Helo with skill, just success, as that's what it measures. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on who you ask, mathematics and statistical rigor are not up for a vote.