Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-12T17:45:20+02:00

Cerberus13 wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks this should be a persons responsibility when they join a game to say "Hey, Im not great at (front/air/close spawns/this map)" and let that be the end of it?
Thats what most people I know do... never had a problem with that. lol.

I think most people do, but I for one like to experiment to get better at things. I tried out playing air last night on "The Pyramid" and it was a miserable experience for me and the team; I let them down.

The guy playing air was ~1100, but he was pretty good at it. I later found out he plays Seton's a lot, and considering air is basically an eco rush he definitely out-played me ; /

You can't really get too upset about people wanting to try new things, but it does bring down a team if he/she fails miserably.

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 12 Sep 2014, 17:45

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-12T17:23:08+02:00

Am I the only one that thinks this should be a persons responsibility when they join a game to say "Hey, Im not great at (front/air/close spawns/this map)" and let that be the end of it?
Thats what most people I know do... never had a problem with that. lol.

Statistics: Posted by Tex — 12 Sep 2014, 17:23

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-11T22:59:48+02:00

Tip number two: just play the game and ignore the numbers. Like we use to. Players who play allot with each other will know where they stand (I.e. tournaments).

P.S. I went to school for physics, so u could say I'm kinda a rocket scientist :p

Statistics: Posted by rockoe10 — 11 Sep 2014, 22:59

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-11T19:20:54+02:00

among all the cluelessness i feel like i need to say that balancing a game is an easy thing to do.
and i am not even a rocket scientist.
maybe some of you can come forward with the difficulties you have and i can give you some tips.
first tip is free: if you happen to play a game where someone didnt perform the way you expected them
to perform and this was an exception to the rule, then dont start a ragepost on the matter.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 11 Sep 2014, 19:20

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-11T16:04:07+02:00

ZePilot, hi !

I see that now you say we should use our brains to balance, and i agree. But if we take actual player skill knowledge in account, it usually leads to game with poor % but that are actually nicely balanced. Problem is poor GQ% fucks the reward/punishment in point due to game result, that's why people try to get high GQ %.

But 6-9 months ago that's exactly what we were doing : using our brains and personnal knowledge of players to balance fun games regardless of GQ %. Since GQ was totally fucked anyway, and no one wanted to mess with rating too much for no reason (we all agreed game was balance & would be fun, we didnt care of getting more points for winning it), unless everyone really wanted it, so we were playing a LOT in unranked games.

You really wanted to make the global mentality change about rating and you successfully did it. We went from 70%+ unranked games for ~1500 people to 90%+ ranked. Odin is a freak for hosting unranked now :p Now people are sort of forced into using the rating system and they see it limits and start to post about it, and that was of course expected. But what you say when you ask us to balance ourselves is globally "restart to unrank games". Even i who was really for unranked system, now i am strongly in favor of ranked games WHEN they feel balanced or when i feel like it would be truly representative of 2 even teams doing their best. (= never except when all my side is 100% my trusted clan mates, then i'm ready to rank all games even if GQ is 50% stacked against us or the opposite).

We can't BE FORCED to use the rating system (since you decided we are too stupid to be clever in our use of the ranked/unranked game feature and it was a huge paradox or something) and right after be ENCOURAGED to IGNORE IT. Like you said at that time it was paradoxal and it still is.

I know me & all my clan mates were trying to stay on the rating we thought was representative of our level to not stack games one way or the other. If we were going to low or too high by accident we tried to go back to "true" rating. Now i'm 1700+ because i win more games by playing on voicechat. But when i play with random people, i can't be as good as my rating since i can't coordinate at all, i can't count on my air to be scouting when i need it (even when he is 2k+), i can't ask people not to suicide, we can't concert and review all available strategies to pick the best, etc... And then it fucks balance, and the cycle keep going forever. I'm maybe 1700+ in BFA team, but only 1500-1600 in random people team. What should i do when people always try to balance "my big 1700" by putting me against player above my league ? I don't cry and i do my best, i like challenges and opportunities to improve, but then my team is not always happy after the game, and people start posting on forums because they lost because of me lol

I totally agree with everyone here, but we have to admit this is one step further, one step back, and everyone wanting everything at once...

TLDR : I really miss the time where most games were unranked and we were honnestly trying to balance the game for it to be the best fun it could instead of blindly trusting rating & GQ %. It was more about fun and less about "search for pseudo perfect balance". We were trying to balance spot by spot according to player skills, actually listening to what they had to say about in what they feel good/bad... much like setons player do actually ^^

Sorry i have no solution to this, just pointing out annoying stuff that doesn't help anyone

PS : The most direct consequence of this is that i almost never enjoy playing with strangers since even when everyone is decent no team chat leads to noob gameplay quite offen. So i naturally avoid playing ranked if my team is not 100% composed of people i know, i trust, and have on voicechat. The good thing is losing 75%+ games with random people makes it for the 75% win ration in clan i suppose...

You can't make FA competitive (rating, winning...) and friendly (people wanting to have fun without emphasizing on getting free reward) at the same time. Well you can, but i mean custom is trying to be both. Like almost everyone said, there should be custom unrank and real team ranked ideally. And maybe more turnaments and more varied ones to attract all the people that really like rating and challenge idk

Statistics: Posted by Poch — 11 Sep 2014, 16:04

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-11T15:40:22+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
Yes, all maps are differents, that's why it's called "global rating" and not "10x10 high reclaim map rating".

The problem is people reading too many things in that number. It's just a statistic data, nothing more. It has the meaning you put into it.
If the general behavior is to put too much meaning, the solution is to remove it, not to over-complexity it.

So no fix needed, next topic.

And indeed, a matchmaker would solve any issue, as the current rating system is a placeholder for it, some sort of manual matchmaker.

You have a brain, use it. The hosted map is seton? Then ignore the rating if you think it doesn't make sense.

Zep, what can I do to help get the matchmaker system moving forward and implemented?

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 11 Sep 2014, 15:40

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-11T11:32:57+02:00

One thing's for sure.

Whether its in Aeolus, or on the forums, "setons" remains a magical word to make people react

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 11 Sep 2014, 11:32

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-11T11:30:04+02:00

Am I the only one facing, in *most* lobbies, the ridiculous situation where people will switch 20 times people spots to reach 90%+ game quality ?
I seriously see people complaining even when the fuckin % is > 80...

And here I'm absolutely not talking about setons, which I stopped playing few months ago.

So yeah people have brain, but it's either defective, sleeping or disconnected. You need to realize this. Hence it would make life easier for everyone, even for the psycho-balancers, to have a "fix". Of course it's not NEEDED, but it would be a NICE improvement.

My own solution for now, is to join, x in, go back to whatever , and then come back when I hear the game launch.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 11 Sep 2014, 11:30

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-11T11:21:07+02:00

@Lionhardt: this could be fixed by letting you choose which lanes to balance in the script options, possibly hardcoded into it for the most common maps (setons, pyramid, etc).

Statistics: Posted by Vee — 11 Sep 2014, 11:21

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-11T10:23:21+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
Yes, all maps are differents, that's why it's called "global rating" and not "10x10 high reclaim map rating".

The problem is people reading too many things in that number. It's just a statistic data, nothing more. It has the meaning you put into it.
If the general behavior is to put too much meaning, the solution is to remove it, not to over-complexity it.

Nail on the head.

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 11 Sep 2014, 10:23

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-11T08:39:20+02:00

odin002 wrote:
---
There are examples but it's just in order to explain. Don't take them too seriously. And woh, there were so many interesting ideas on this topic that it's hard to try to sum up everything.
---
@Morax : I think the thing you are missing is that (some?many?) people don't want this trophy seton, or maybe they want a better rating system.
---

Yeah the rating should be map dependant obviously :
===>playing the ditch is not the same at all that playing open palms.
===> And playing badlands(or goodlands) 1v1 is not the same that playing a teamgame on it.
===>And if you have played 100 times the map, its' not the same that if you have never played it.
===>To help, maybe there should be tags too on maps :
For example the tag of heavy reclaim maps(daroza/ditch/3v3 death valley...), the tag of 5x5 maps without water, tag of 5x5 heavy navy maps and so on...
And if you play daroza and you win, you earn for example 20 points, and 10 points for the group of reclaim maps and 1 points for other maps... something like that.
===>It should be spot dependant when needed too.
===>Take into account if they have many games together(some synergy..?) . And if they are playing together with a mic . (if it's a matchmaking system this idea is useless)
---

The best way to stop all that rating disuccion is if everyone would just go and play more maps at all.
go play some 1v1 ladder , Survivals ,Thermo/Gap , some nice 2v2 Setons or 4v4 rush me more , a nice 4v4 Pyramids or a FFA on crazy rush go play soem nice 3v3 on tein river or a 2v2 on blasedrocks.

Sadly it will never happen, even in gpg some people were only playing isis, or seton or 1v1 only or 2v2 only or 3v3/4v4 only...
---
It will be longer for the rating to reach a good value (so the % will be bullshit for some games) but it will be much more accurate later, and anyways you can't judge a player skill by seeing him playing only 10 games so it's normal that the % is bullshit at the start. And hidden ratings + matchmaking would be perfect for ranked teamgames, and the possibility of doing unrated games(to train, test maps, or just for not caring about competition). We shouldn't need to have all the details of players... (can't imagine the time needing for balancing otherwise, just for a 3v3 game for example)
It's not bad to have competition. But anyways with this playerdatabase...uhh.Would need more players...
---
Autobalance is rather useless unless someone make a program to read the map in order to know which spot is against which spot or unless all the maps are redone to follow a logic for the spots as it was said. But yeah I hate these boring games, when a higher rated player have to kill the ennemy faster than the ennemy one.
---
Yeah if you want to play in the team of your friend, it shouldn't be forbidden, if you want to train the teamplay, cooperation and so on... The game will be a bit less balanced though (which may mean no fun if the game is over at 8 minutes...).

-------
I agree that these discussions are useless because as someone said :

I guess zep would say "sure, do it yourself".
and it needs wayyyy more details to really make this new rating system. And as someone else said, everything shouldn't be done at the same time but instead of that, do it small step by small step.

Yes, all maps are differents, that's why it's called "global rating" and not "10x10 high reclaim map rating".

The problem is people reading too many things in that number. It's just a statistic data, nothing more. It has the meaning you put into it.
If the general behavior is to put too much meaning, the solution is to remove it, not to over-complexity it.

So no fix needed, next topic.

And indeed, a matchmaker would solve any issue, as the current rating system is a placeholder for it, some sort of manual matchmaker.

You have a brain, use it. The hosted map is seton? Then ignore the rating if you think it doesn't make sense.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 11 Sep 2014, 08:39

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-11T01:50:24+02:00

Styrbjorn wrote:
Of course this is not bullshit, thats how the mod/script works. Its also fun you play vs your mates. Otherwise do not host random games, its pretty simple and even you should understand it.

Oh come on, stop making random comments.
Just couple posts ago you suggested to play with friends using same auto balance mod and have a chance to play same team, and now you say that if i want to play together i shouldnt host/join such game? Lol, how about you start making sense?

And yeah, dont bother telling what is fun for me. I know better, ok?

Statistics: Posted by Mad`Mozart — 11 Sep 2014, 01:50

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-10T23:46:28+02:00

---
There are examples but it's just in order to explain. Don't take them too seriously. And woh, there were so many interesting ideas on this topic that it's hard to try to sum up everything.
---
@Morax : I think the thing you are missing is that (some?many?) people don't want this trophy seton, or maybe they want a better rating system.
---

Yeah the rating should be map dependant obviously :
===>playing the ditch is not the same at all that playing open palms.
===> And playing badlands(or goodlands) 1v1 is not the same that playing a teamgame on it.
===>And if you have played 100 times the map, its' not the same that if you have never played it.
===>To help, maybe there should be tags too on maps :
For example the tag of heavy reclaim maps(daroza/ditch/3v3 death valley...), the tag of 5x5 maps without water, tag of 5x5 heavy navy maps and so on...
And if you play daroza and you win, you earn for example 20 points, and 10 points for the group of reclaim maps and 1 points for other maps... something like that.
===>It should be spot dependant when needed too.
===>Take into account if they have many games together(some synergy..?) . And if they are playing together with a mic . (if it's a matchmaking system this idea is useless)
---

The best way to stop all that rating disuccion is if everyone would just go and play more maps at all.
go play some 1v1 ladder , Survivals ,Thermo/Gap , some nice 2v2 Setons or 4v4 rush me more , a nice 4v4 Pyramids or a FFA on crazy rush go play soem nice 3v3 on tein river or a 2v2 on blasedrocks.

Sadly it will never happen, even in gpg some people were only playing isis, or seton or 1v1 only or 2v2 only or 3v3/4v4 only...
---
It will be longer for the rating to reach a good value (so the % will be bullshit for some games) but it will be much more accurate later, and anyways you can't judge a player skill by seeing him playing only 10 games so it's normal that the % is bullshit at the start. And hidden ratings + matchmaking would be perfect for ranked teamgames, and the possibility of doing unrated games(to train, test maps, or just for not caring about competition). We shouldn't need to have all the details of players... (can't imagine the time needing for balancing otherwise, just for a 3v3 game for example)
It's not bad to have competition. But anyways with this playerdatabase...uhh.Would need more players...
---
Autobalance is rather useless unless someone make a program to read the map in order to know which spot is against which spot or unless all the maps are redone to follow a logic for the spots as it was said. But yeah I hate these boring games, when a higher rated player have to kill the ennemy faster than the ennemy one.
---
Yeah if you want to play in the team of your friend, it shouldn't be forbidden, if you want to train the teamplay, cooperation and so on... The game will be a bit less balanced though (which may mean no fun if the game is over at 8 minutes...).

-------
I agree that these discussions are useless because as someone said :

I guess zep would say "sure, do it yourself".

and it needs wayyyy more details to really make this new rating system. And as someone else said, everything shouldn't be done at the same time but instead of that, do it small step by small step.

Statistics: Posted by odin002 — 10 Sep 2014, 23:46

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-10T23:12:11+02:00

Of course this is not bullshit, thats how the mod/script works. Its also fun you play vs your mates. Otherwise do not host random games, its pretty simple and even you should understand it.

Statistics: Posted by Styrbjorn — 10 Sep 2014, 23:12

Re: Seton's Majority Player Designation

2014-09-10T23:11:16+02:00

Blodir wrote:
Alas, Zep said he doesn't want to work on the matchmaker anymore, and if I remember correctly he mentioned wanting to allow map preferences too which would really not fix the rating inflation problem anyway.

We see this issue in ladder too, but it's definitely better than the current situation.

Honestly this thread is useless, there is a solution, the matchmaker.

Statistics: Posted by Aulex — 10 Sep 2014, 23:11