Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

stats and semirandom teams - is it possible?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • stats and semirandom teams - is it possible?

    Ok guys. This is your chance. All you bunnies who bitch about random not being so, or not being what you want: build me a better design.

    If we come up with a design that's possible and really desirable, I'll do my best to build it.

    Constraints? I've got to be able to slap one key on my keyboard to make the team auto-assignments happen.
    Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

    Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

  • #2
    Re: how to improve upon amx_random

    If we build rules onto amx_random, it wouldn't be so random anymore.

    amx_foxnews: ( Fair and ballanced my a$$)

    The only way I could think of making what your talking about would be to "grade" each player, and assign based on that "grade". Perhaps instead of grading each player by hand, this could be done automaticly, by either by saving the players stats for the past X games, or just for the prior round. I dunno, it's a start.
    birdie_in_Texas:ok..i feel stupid here..what is "NS"..? Wyzcrak:Natural Selection. Don't feel at a loss for not knowing the acronym. Feel at a loss for not having experienced the game.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: how to improve upon amx_random

      How can you quantitatively grade a player, though? We've beat all the stats to death only to determine that player quality is quite intangible. And I doubt Wyz wants to maintain a separate "rating" database.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: how to improve upon amx_random

        This is not necessarily balanced, but probably quite easy to implement, and I believe it's been suggested before:
        Balance out the number of unregistered (?) players on each time. i.e.: if there are 7 unreg players, put 3 on one team and 4 on the other.

        The other suggestions I can come up with are:
        • Have the plugin break up the winning team from the last round if the game lasted less than, say, 7 minutes.
        • Have the plugin keep track of the "extremely high kill death-ratio" players (this could be defined as ratio > 2:1 or a fixed span of say at least 20 kills more than deaths) from last round and make sure they get redistributed evenly in the next round.
        Cool! Personalized plates! Barclay, Barry, Bert, Bort...come on...Bort?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: how to improve upon amx_random

          Not sure how feasible this is, but it just came to me.

          Each time a player is on a winning team the get a win counter incremented. Simply sort the players by the win counter, and alternate team assignment down the list. I imagine this will separate those who win the most so that teams are less stacked.

          Wining doesn’t necessarily = skill, but wouldn’t the BEST players have a higher win count than the average?


          Actually, count may not be the best because those who play more would naturally have a higher count. Use a win/loss % instead.
          Steam Community: | |

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: how to improve upon amx_random

            This may not be the most perfectly balanced plan, but the easiest way to take a step towards balance is simply to start by randoming all the SMs, then random all the registered players, then random all the unregistered in that order. That way you get about the same number of SMs on each team, and about the same number of unregistered players on each team. This won't guarantee an even skill balance, but it should be a decent step towards it with no extra record keeping needed.

            If you're up for the extra record keeping, that Win/loss % counter from the last post doesn't seem like a bad idea either.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: how to improve upon amx_random

              Originally posted by kormendi
              Not sure how feasible this is, but it just came to me.

              Each time a player is on a winning team the get a win counter incremented. Simply sort the players by the win counter, and alternate team assignment down the list. I imagine this will separate those who win the most so that teams are less stacked.

              Wining doesn’t necessarily = skill, but wouldn’t the BEST players have a higher win count than the average?


              Actually, count may not be the best because those who play more would naturally have a higher count. Use a win/loss % instead.
              Nice, but I also have an idea to add, but I don't know if it would be too memory efficient. Have a list for each registered member the length of all the registered members, with a spot for each. At the end of each game, prompt every user on the players team who has not rated that one to rate them. So on the first game where this is implemented, a team full of registered players would each get 8 prompts to rate themselves and eachother. The average of all the ratings would be their rating overall. This would all be behind the scenes. If a players skill changes, then those who notice could amx_revote <playername> <score>, and it would go in and recalculate the rating.

              So when amx_random is used, it could use both the team-win count and the average rating to place members.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: how to improve upon amx_random

                I have to favor the win/loss ratio balancing idea of Kormendi's. There would have to be a random seed of some kind in there so that if you randomed twice, the teams wouldn't be exactly the same.
                Rm 14:2 NIV
                One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: how to improve upon amx_random

                  Originally posted by Tempest
                  I have to favor the win/loss ratio balancing idea of Kormendi's. There would have to be a random seed of some kind in there so that if you randomed twice, the teams wouldn't be exactly the same.
                  Right, I hadn't considered that. Perhaps 0% - 30% are lumped into a single randomized group, then for 30-70% smaller chunks are randomized, and then 70% - 100% are placed top down into alternating teams.

                  For the 30 - 70 group, break the players into 1% increments. Each of those increments is then randomized. Reasoning is that the majority of players will probably fall into a place near 50%.

                  Going further, players who have fewer than 10(more/less?) games under their belt would be randomized without considering the ratio.

                  I think after the statistics have been established the numbers would surely need tweaking...
                  Steam Community: | |

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: how to improve upon amx_random

                    Originally posted by Kerostasis
                    This may not be the most perfectly balanced plan, but the easiest way to take a step towards balance is simply to start by randoming all the SMs, then random all the registered players, then random all the unregistered in that order. That way you get about the same number of SMs on each team, and about the same number of unregistered players on each team. This won't guarantee an even skill balance, but it should be a decent step towards it with no extra record keeping needed.
                    THAT is a winner of an idea.
                    [volun2]
                    NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
                    Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
                    <anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
                    <LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash

                    Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: how to improve upon amx_random

                      Wow. I'm impressed. I'll continue to look to this thread for ideas. It'll be days before I can even begin to implement any of this.
                      Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

                      Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: how to improve upon amx_random

                        Originally posted by Kerostasis
                        This may not be the most perfectly balanced plan, but the easiest way to take a step towards balance is simply to start by randoming all the SMs, then random all the registered players, then random all the unregistered in that order. That way you get about the same number of SMs on each team, and about the same number of unregistered players on each team. This won't guarantee an even skill balance, but it should be a decent step towards it with no extra record keeping needed.
                        I like the sound of this, also.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: how to improve upon amx_random

                          If the amx_random can be fixed to split the teams evenly it would be great, but I would like the delay that stops you joining a team to stop aswell, sometimes I just want to go alien or marine, I would like to have the choice first before being randomed.The random also seems to stick you on the same team again and again.
                          I disagree with this, when I was using a slower machine, I'd always be the last person to load the map. This would cause me to enter the game only after it had begun denying me the ability to choose my team and more importantly, command. With the delay, it at least gives everyone the same chance to get in the game and choose a team before the random.

                          Could the amx_random plugin also be changed to automatically random everyone after say 15 seconds if no one has already randomed the teams?
                          I second this notion.
                          Rm 14:2 NIV
                          One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: how to improve upon amx_random

                            I vote for kero's idea. Secondly, whether it be done by amx_random or by some other plug-in there should be established that a player may not join one team more than 3 or 4 times in a row. So then the same people aren't always going aliens or marines.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: how to improve upon amx_random

                              Originally posted by Kerostasis
                              This may not be the most perfectly balanced plan, but the easiest way to take a step towards balance is simply to start by randoming all the SMs, then random all the registered players, then random all the unregistered in that order. That way you get about the same number of SMs on each team, and about the same number of unregistered players on each team. This won't guarantee an even skill balance, but it should be a decent step towards it with no extra record keeping needed.

                              If you're up for the extra record keeping, that Win/loss % counter from the last post doesn't seem like a bad idea either.
                              I like this idea too, although you might want to random all the Consties before registered players.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X