Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-22T21:46:45+02:00

Well, of course do it server side (because of trueSkill) but you got the point. I don't think add this feature would take any performance on your server since it's only a small "average calculation".
Anyway it would be really cool and help a lot, more than that "noob-average-good-great" from playertrack which was not very accurate.

Statistics: Posted by Cobrand — 22 Feb 2012, 21:46

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-22T15:33:32+02:00

You can't average from the rating directly.
Someone can have 2500 rating just because he won his 2 first games against someone high ranked, by luck.

But the averaging can be done server side (because it know the deviation factor)

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 22 Feb 2012, 15:33

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-22T15:24:34+02:00

With still the idea of rating, why not make the average of all the guys' rating in the game ? This way you could get an idea of what kind of player there is.
Example :
I am 1000 rating and the average shows 1300 ; I know it will be very hard but it can be playable.
Now The average is 1500, this time it's another level from mine, and I should not get into this room.

It would be perfect if you can add a color to this : Green if the difference between you and average is under 150, Orange if it's under 400, Red if it's under 700 and Black for further.

Just an idea, it would be really helpful to all players I guess

Statistics: Posted by Cobrand — 22 Feb 2012, 15:24

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-22T13:33:05+02:00

Yeah I thought about "tags" for games that you could tack on, but really, one person's noob is another person's pro. And that's what the game name is for.

Statistics: Posted by thygrrr — 22 Feb 2012, 13:33

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-22T12:30:19+02:00

I think a better system is a voluntary one. People can self-identify with labels like "beginner", "intermediate", "advanced".
When hosting, you can mark your game as being intended for one of these groups.

If someone from the wrong group attempts to join, they get a warning message but they are allowed to join. The host also gets a notification.

I think this sort of system is better as it allows for identification and convenience without actually restricting what people can do.

Sure, someone can mark themselves with an incorrect label, but theyre only hurting themselves and their reputation. Anyone marked "beginner" with a high rating, or vice versa, is pretty fishy and probably will be kicked anyways.

Also, you shouldnt have hidden games, only locked ones. So lots of people playing with friends will still make the game seem active.

Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 22 Feb 2012, 12:30

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-22T02:06:17+02:00

You do know that, the way TrueSkill works, the "average" rating should be around 1500?

I'm strongly against any type of rating filter as it will lead to more exclusion and more barriers to entry for new players. Game titles do that already.

Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 22 Feb 2012, 02:06

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-21T22:38:48+02:00

I think that even games are something that should be tried to achieve with the help of FAF.

Here's my proposal.
The Lobby host is given 3 skill options when creating a public lobby: low, medium, high. No definitive rank cutoffs are allowed to the user.

However, these skill settings would have a nominal ranking associated with them. For this example, Low=600, Medium=900, High=1200.

The lobby then takes the hoster's ranking and averages it with the nominal skill ranking chosen and changes the cutoff for the lobby depending on the hoster's ranking. For this example the cutoff is ±150.

So, my ranking is about 840. If I host a game and choose 'medium' the lobby would take my ranking, average it with 900, and produce 870. With the ±150 skill caps, this means that no one with skills above 1020 or below 720 could join the game. The number values in this example are just placeholders, not necessarily recommended.

Additionally, it might be possible, but complicated, to do a weighted average system with the lobby members also taken into account that widens the player skills allowed in the lobby.

Note: If this were implemented, a feature like a red/green indicator for lobbys would be very handy for the player trying to get into one.

Statistics: Posted by TheStrategist — 21 Feb 2012, 22:38

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-21T14:19:06+02:00

FunkOff wrote:
I'm not sure I like the rating limit :-/

why not? I think its worth a try, see how it works out..

I recently started to host >1000 games, for several reasons:

1. most times there are enough games open or enough player online. <1000 can host their own games
2. its rather difficult to get a game going if there is someone with 400 in it, as noone wants to play with them and rather leave. I can understand this, a game which's outcome is clear from the beginning...no fun to play.
3. game quality is really higher if all players are of the same level. a 500 player has no fun in a game with 1500's. And the 1500's have no fun (if they play with the 500) or no challenge (if they play against him).

And even with >1000 host name, sometimes games are unbalanced, if you have a 1700 or something in one team

What about the option be like Zepilot said only a indicator.

I host a game, i have 1400 points, and I set the game to 1000 to 1600. Still everybody can join, but the game will have a red background or a little warning sign in the game list for everybody that is out of this range.

Statistics: Posted by Kryo — 21 Feb 2012, 14:19

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-21T13:32:39+02:00

No min or max. But with the current values, I don't think you will have less than -500 and more than 3000.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 21 Feb 2012, 13:32

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-21T13:29:28+02:00

What are the maximum and minimum ratings possible?

Statistics: Posted by thygrrr — 21 Feb 2012, 13:29

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-21T11:37:35+02:00

One thing I'm sure :
People that doesn't like the idea will keep kicking people in their game because of their rank

By the way, be careful : The minimum is not 0...

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 21 Feb 2012, 11:37

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-21T10:32:06+02:00

I thought with all those "no noobs", "be good", "noobs only", "<= 1300" games out there, that an optinal rating filter would be a good idea and save you the hassle to kick the one 1400 rated player in a game with all others only below 1000.

I've spent some time thinking about it and actually, I think FAF is better served with a simpler approach to hosting. My philosophy behind the new "Find Games" UI was to get as many people as possible to play. My philosophy with this hosting dialog seemed to keep as many people as possible out.

Not sure where to go from here.

Statistics: Posted by thygrrr — 21 Feb 2012, 10:32

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-21T09:27:58+02:00

The rank is meant to be an info, not a filter (except for ladder).
But there will be an option to display rank or not in the lobby (at the cost of the game balance info)

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 21 Feb 2012, 09:27

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-21T08:58:45+02:00

I dont like the rating either. Maybe there should be big Discussion about it where every beta tester should express his opinion?

I think, that with games that exclude certain players all the players will loose some cool games. Yes its possible that your team looses because of a new or bad rated player. But it is also possible to win with him. Why to take such games away? Even if you dont want to team up with a lower ranked player it is not automatically a loss.

Statistics: Posted by Mond — 21 Feb 2012, 08:58

Re: Game Hosting 0.6

2012-02-21T03:08:17+02:00

thygrrr wrote:

Yeah, not skinned yet but I guess that's what it'll look like for now. Still taking suggestions for features.

It will.

FunkOff wrote:
I'm not sure I like the rating limit :-/

Me neither! It might create the wrong kind of culture in the game. As would hidden games.

Rules for rating limit would be that you can only narrow it down to +/- 100 points from your own rating, maybe 200. (so, if you are 1000, you can't narrow it down more than 800-1200)

Absolutely not sure about this feature, this is why I'm asking.

Statistics: Posted by thygrrr — 21 Feb 2012, 03:08