Gaming Zone > Unreal Tournament 2004
A Bit of Better Balancing
Flenser:
--- Quote from: Piglet on October 13, 2021, 16:14 ---The question here is the algorithm to use the data to derive a rank.
--- End quote ---
Thinking out loud here… Or typing out loud. Or something.
The game already has a scoring algorithm for each player. That score takes into account kills, captures, returns, etc. doesn't it? If so, we should just be able to use the final score at the end of each game.
I was thinking just take the scores of each of the players at the end of a game, and add that to their overall score in the database. But I'm not sure whether someone who plays a lot and gets 10 points per game is on par with someone who plays 1/5 the number of games but gets 50 point in each game they play.
Using a per-scoring-action algorithm doesn't change this aspect, does it? If we record (for example) 10 points in the DB every time a player captures a flag, that still doesn't necessarily balance correctly against someone who just plays a lot.
So, if the DB stores each player's scores, FOR EACH GAME, then we can calculate the average score per game for each player, and use that as the "rank".
So if Arbok only plays 2 games a week, but scores on average 120 points, he's a way better player than someone who plays 120 games a week and scores an average 2 points each game, even though they've accumulated the same number of points.
The_Cowboy:
Good thinking!
Boys, we are going nuclear!
(This is how nuclear shells are filled, well similar process. Pun intended!)
Piglet:
Strange as it may seem, I don't think we want the balancer to be too good. You could end up with stalemate every game.
Saving stats for each game makes for a lot of data.
Storing number of games played may help, though time may be as good. The player who plays for a short time and gets lots of caps or points or covers etc will be flagged high if you use an "attribute/time" benchmark. The same will be the case for players who have huge caps and very large play time. Conversely, a poor player with a lot of caps but a huge amount of play time will be ranked low when using "attribute/time" benchmark.
The hardest thing is using the data (whatever the data) to assign a rank for ordering.
You don't want to end up with all attackers on one team and all defenders on the other. There needs to be a "reasonable" mix of the attributes on each. My gut feel is that if you get the better cappers split between the teams, and then the better defenders split between the teams then you're well on the way.
The_Cowboy:
I completely agree with you Piglet.
I believe what Flenser has given me (us?) a starting point to build the metric upon, starting simply with the total score which covers (covers (see what I did here :D), seals, flagkills etc).
We can than start massaging and tweaking the factors with relevant weightage, depending on the feedback churned.
And of course you will have the final absolute say.
The_Cowboy:
--- Quote from: The_Cowboy on October 14, 2021, 10:46 ---I completely agree with you Piglet.
I believe what Flenser has given me (us?) a building point for the relevant metric, starting simply with the total score, which covers the Equalizer factors (covers (see what I did here :D), seals, and flagkills ...).
We can then start massaging and tweaking the factors with relevant weightage, depending on the feedback churned.
And of course you will have the final absolute say.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version