Gaming Zone > Unreal Tournament 2004
A Bit of Better Balancing
Gil-galad:
One venue that I didn't explore is the time stamps.
The most obvious case I can think off is to measure the duration of a flag carrier role, to acknowledge the difficulty that can be simply just holding it when the enemy has your team's flag.
I suspect that some other durations could also be used to further improve all the ideas around distances that I tried to present.
Like the duration spent on the journey to the enemy's flag : some, like Darkside or TheEnder, can be VERY fast (running, no vehicle). Perhaps that could be a solution to measure and value these skills... or for that case, flag touches and flag captures counts would be enough...?
I'm not comprehensive at all here, it's just to show the possibilities.
More generally, I 'd really want to find objective values where it's possible instead of having a guess picking an approximate subjective value. I want to have a robust balance mechanism, not something that would prove to be too circumstantial and thus less efficient. Players will adapt their gameplay if the game changes, and we wish the balancer to stay the most pertinent and efficient that is possible nonetheless.
that' how i got thinking in terms of distances and flags.
Gil-galad:
ON the ELO mechanism that was discussed :
--- Quote from: Gil-galad --- For averages calculation and variations at the end of the match, the accumulated total for every category by a player could be weighted against the value achieved by other players, to avoid the noise of the variation of the game-play rhythm that is due to the nature more or less spammy and speedy of the maps.
--- End quote ---
I think it's the same thing. I'm very much in favour of such mechanism.
it is in line with this :
--- Quote from: Gil-galad ---The value of a kill, or a damage, can be broken into various parameters.
- how close you are from your target. the further, bigger the value => Aim factor
- the quality of the target you off or damage. The better player, the more value has the kill or the damage => Target dangerosity factor.
- how close the target is from his flag post, his dropped flag, your dropped flag, your flag on its post. The closer, the higher the value of the the damage => Implication factor. (1)
- Is the target shooting your FC? Or killing your best player? In essence, what is the value of the targets YOUR target is shooting (or aiming, as trying to shoot at)=> Support factor.
[edit] Since writing this, I've thought of one more general factor : the distance from spawn. see below.
[...]
NOTE. I wrote distance as distance of the path. I wrote "spawn" as a place, but i should have used, if all agree to the idea, the pole of inaccessibility of the polygon designed by the team spawn points and the team flag post. If there's only one spawn point, then the point to be used is the middle of the segment of an imaginary line that would connect spawn point to flag post. by the shortest path (a straight line). See previous post for the pole of inaccessibility if you're not understanding what it is. I wasn't explicit for sentence simplicity's sake.
--- End quote ---
I was trying to address this concern :
--- Quote from: Piglet ---It's a tricky one. You're thinking in terms of flags all the time - however if you watch me in Bloodbath, my aim is to prevent players getting anywhere near the flag. I'm shooting the hordes of players attacking and trying to prevent them even getting there.
How are you going to measure the value of me killing 100 players before they reach the flag, compared to the sniper being nothing more than a nuisance shooting 100 people milling around the spawn points?
How are you going to measure the value of Moi shooting me and preventing me from defending?
--- End quote ---
sup:
I think the simple solution is usually the right one...
Look this game:
Nardaq, Sadly, lol and Kyhado at same team
Just by looking at this I know it's not balanced and the red team's points/time played ratio is much higher than that of the blue team
(this game was 5x1 for the red team quickly)
Gil-galad:
Since the beginning of this thread, I was introduced to an Assault balancer designed by really good players that intimately know ut2K4(1), from that pick-up assault server that perhaps some of you will know.
HERE for a link to their site. THERE for the ranking.
The algorithm has been active for nearly a year now, I've been told. I did not play on that server recently, and I can't try it now. This server is the only active assault community that I know of.
On the the algorithm they use, that is based on the win rate percentage and an Elo ranking system :
--- Quote from: Small Assault community ---Winning the game: +6
Every additional objective the team completed compared to the opposing team: +2
The resulting points will then be multiplied by the losing team's win chance.
As such, teams that are rated significantly higher than the opposing team won't earn many points from winning against lower rated teams, but will lose more points than usual when they lose against the lower rated team.
also New players will not be ranked immediately. They stay unranked for their first 10 games.
--- End quote ---
The points given for additional objectives are given to keep people engaged in the match until the end, even if one team has already lost.
This is a glorious day. I dreamt of an assault balancer for years. Now, if I could just get a working battle station... :D
You can hit Pablito on Discord if you want more on this balancer. Do read on their FAQ the content behind the line how are players rated/ranked?
(1)hwnd, rafi and zord
The_Cowboy:
I like it Gil! We just need to translate that assault metric to (v)CTF terminology. Simple stuff really!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version