Gaming Zone > Unreal Tournament 2004
A Bit of Better Balancing
The_Cowboy:
I think what Gil has found is an abstraction for right translation to vCTF gametype. It is my work to now project/map it to the current state of Equalizer abstraction for robust(?) concreteness (you know with relevant partitions for various gaugable actions 8)). I should come up with something this weekend!
The_Cowboy:
At the risk of freaking you guys I am inscribing the pdf here
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/22797?show=full
I am interested in gauging the non linear effects. That is, using meta analysis to generate more meta (which is community driven!).
Let me know how it feels :D
Gil-galad:
I've tried to read it, but I'm no mathematician and know nothing of game design.
I wonder what you think of the TrueSkill method over Elo. From what I read, it seems to fit better, and it doesn't seem so different than Elo. Since it adds a certainty/uncertainty value to the prediction. If i got that right.
It says this that I found interesting :
--- Quote from: Alexander Benjamin Jaffe, p. 118 : ---TrueSkill aims to generalize Elo to games with teams of more than one player, and potentially more than two teams.
--- End quote ---
That is our case, and we could even argue that it would apparently fit better VCTF4.
For those who would rather NOT read anything of that document :
--- Quote from: Alexander Benjamin Jaffe ---It is a Bayesian method which models each player’s skill not by a single value, but by a normal distribution of belief. Players are assigned a mean and a variance for their skill. As players win and lose games these beliefs are updated. Wins and losses shift a player’s mean skill up and down; outcomes consistent with predictions decrease variance (increase confidence), whereas inconsistent outcomes increase variance
--- End quote ---
Still have to read the thing again. And to be clear, I have no idea if this would be complicated or hard to implement to our case.
EDIT : it seems there is a TrueSkill 2, that explicitly "support matches with any number of teams and any number of players on each teams". And it supports players quitting and joining, is very light on the server... it really seems worth it to me.
holyspam:
If you have enough data for every player for every single match, you could actually create some statistics to help you rate skills and contribution to victory.
win rate % for each map for this player
win rate % for this player when in the same team with X,Y,Z player
win rate % for this player when playing against X,Y,Z player
"Flag cap rate per minute" on wins
"Flag cap rate per minute" on defeats
"Average time between flag caps" for this player
"Minimum average time between flag caps" for this player (95th percentile)
"Average time between flag caps" when playing with player X,Y,Z
"Minimum average time between flag caps" for this player (95th percentile) when playing with player X,Y,Z
"Returns per minute" on wins
"Returns per minute" on defeats
"Maximum average returns" for this player(95th percentile)
"Maximum average returns" for this player(95th percentile) when playing with player X,Y,Z
KDR on wins
KDR on wins with player X,Y,Z
I could go on forever.
To achieve team balance you need to keep win rate percentages close to 50% for each team.
Comparing 2 players with base statistics like win rate %, flag caps per minute they might be very close.
You proceed to the next metric "average time between flag caps" which will probably follow "flag caps per minute" in most cases, so that could be a draw too
But then you reach "minimum average time between flag caps"
Player1 has a top 5% of 20seconds while player2 has a top 5% of 40seconds, that means that while both may have the same average skills, player1 has a higher skill ceiling than player2
Although i don't think you would have to reach that deep to balance, you can probably balance teams based on winning percentages of team compositions alone.
You can also try going the other route, placing players that are evenly matched when playing against each other on alternate teams.
Flenser:
So complicated.
The more criteria you add, the more players can game the system.
If holding the flag is "good", then you get players taking the flag and hiding forever. Remember when Cybershock and his buddies would take the flag and then hide in a tree, because being jerks was funny?
Just put in a simple balancer based on player's scores and see how it does. Over-engineering is probably a waste of time, and possibly counter-productive.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version