A few months ago, the G4TC network of servers released statistics on player actions across their Empires servers. Though the players' point count and rankings were pretty arbitrary as players could easily get points through various means of pointwhoring, the stats gave a good idea of how people behaved ingame. What weapons they used, what classes they played, what vehicles they fought with, etc. All public knowledge for a few months until those stats have been made private. Some hold that auto-quantifying player skill (opposed to my suggestion of hand-assigning) and using it to balance teams through players' combined "net skill" is the key to resolving Empires stacking and balance issues. In a thread regarding team-wide circlejerking, I suggested: Soundspawn responded, saying: Issues with a raw point tally is that tiers may be constantly changing and managing its growth may become difficult. How would you quantify player skill?
hurrdurr elitism Just play the game with the players you get, and if you want more skillful matches, we have at least 5 active clans. No other game I've played has skill based autobalance, and quite honestly it's rather annoying. Just deal with it, and enjoy it when you get a stack in your favour, and bite the bullet when you don't.
from my experience no matter where u go in games, autobalancers suck ass and doesnt take into account about teamwork etc. and if there is a "top X list" on a server there tends to be tons of people being really really really fkin lame in order to rise in stats and in return do far less teamwork which could have easily won them the game... ofc in return of sacrificing some stats. (like defending a rax where people are being massacred) in other words: booo for autobalancers and stats
I figure balance would work only at the beginning of the round and factor in how new players in the server get put onto teams. I wouldn't want active autobalancing while I'm playing.
also if possible statistics should be collected on squads and general team makeups, as to tweak teamwork coefficient.
Or admins could just intervene when say, BSID stacks a server with 20 BSID vs 10 pubbers, and we just let the game sort itself out when stuff which isn't ridiculous occurs.
It's not like all clan players are good. And it's definite that there are many skilled people who aren't in the major clans.
It's fun when the odds are kinda stacked against you. Cause it's more of a challenge. I want to win matches, but I don't want 5 1337 players to win the match while everyone else dicks around.
I join whichever team doesn't have apwall or whichever team has enough space to accommodate myself and d [catguy]. I mostly see clans just happen to be jumbled up together. Members that are together generally gravitate within the team. If you mean "use teamwork with people you know on the team," I'm a stacker. However, besides my arrangement with d [catguy], I don't purposefully engage in some sort of jipple hivemind.
Wasn't there already many threads about auto-balance? All of them with the same result, that this doesn't work for Empires. And there is also no automatically way to measure the player skill. If I spend 30 minutes on slaughtered just to sabotage the enemy refineries this isn't shown in much points or kills. But nevertheless it often decides the round.
Well, being part of general discussion, this thread is for speculation how it would work. Suggested indexes aren't 100% skill as much as how much a player is an asset to a team. Don't let yourself get bogged in semantics.
Also, when a developer is making a conscious effort to make a rating system, it makes the idea more tangible than it was thought previously.
We'll see what we can do when we start with Steamworks integration and gathering of stats. Maybe we can do something when we actually have a shitload of data. Even then I'd still fix the game instead of fixing team assignments.
I think the easiest way is to base it on the current point system. Just take a running average of the final point value of each player. Newbs = avg between 0 and 40 Vets = avg between 40 and 80 Super-vets = avg above 80
