EPIC campfire plugin

Discussion in 'General' started by OuNin, Jan 26, 2010.

  1. dizzyone

    dizzyone I've been drinking, heavily

    Messages:
    5,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lots of hypothetical talk there, you're using the values to decide the team buildup right? It's pretty much clear that the values are adjusting the numbers of a team.

    You can't make a balancer for the exception, and I think a good game of 10vs40 is going to be the exception.

    If the enemy sends a guy in ruins, you would need one guy there too, that's the basics, you can't let some rating decide whether your team is able to do that even if they are outnumbered. You have to rely on something as basic as this to ensure that the majority of games will play out with the best chances. Ignoring something as simple as this will lead to games that could theoretically be ruined because of the balancer allowing the imbalance.

    The problem with saying that it's alright to outnumber the skill stack is that it can easily lead to ruined games, as in the outnumbering leading to a unbalanced game, and since you also agreed that the rating is not going to accurately assess skill, it's viable to take into account that that imbalance will ruin games for all players. Besides, wouldn't the point be to try and create good games? Try and balance the teams. If you have multiple 600 rated players, wouldn't you think the best game came out of an even division of the best players? Where as the skill stack vs the rest might sound epic and all, but has the same chances of becoming a catastrophe.

    Lets say you have a team of 4 skilled players, vs a team of 15 unskilled. Now lets say the team of 15 has no good commanders, their best commander would be the kinda guy that knew you wouldn't need a 2nd barracks in your base at the start of the game, or a repair station as your first building. But instead is the kinda guy that drops an armory, or rushes for ruins with all his team. Not much of a good game, I'm sure the vets that stacked the other team would agree that there wasn't anything epic about that game at all.


    Whats wrong with skill stacking? Nobody chose to have a 600 rating, I've already given this example before, but here it is, what if a 600 guy imbalances a team of 100 rating guys, then right after the commander vote times out and leaves his 100 rating team to a nice slaughter of 9 vs 15.

    The basis of any good balancer is that it is going to account for how the game is played the majority of the time and how you can ensure the best possible match in the majority of situations. This system just sounds good for a couple scenarios, but simply ignores all the others, as well as the side effects of the system that are going to ruin games.

    The fundamentals of this balancer don't add up to what you're saying, in a game of Empires you don't need kills, a good game of district can be ended with less than 5 kills. It's flawed in it's core and you should atleast expect the same amount of completely ruined games (worse than number balanced but stacked) as the amount of epic games this could possibly create.

    A balancer that suggests isn't already there. what you're doing could be turned into a glorfied suggestion system though. People use the options that are presented to them. If you don't give them the option to make a balanced decision, in this case they would probably stack.

    Your balancer will ruin games, that's whats wrong. Instead of teaching people a lesson you could actually give them useful information to help them make an educated decision.


    What I understood from your post is that you don't really care about a good balance, or else you wouldn't make the system allow stacking, you give them a very complicated way that allows situational freedom that is based on a shady rating system, of which you haven't proven that it can't be exploited.


    An alternative system that would also give more choice, but atleast try and balance is to split the ratings up into 3 groups, the high end (high rating), mid and low end. Then based on the player count it could decide that a team can have 3 high end players, 10 mid and 5 low end. Players that are categorized within one of the three have free choice to which team they would like to join, regardless of total numbers, but instead based on numbers of slots available for their category. Sort of like Le mans.

    Edit: Besides, I've gone over this and a lot more in my previous post. It's a bit silly to be ignored at first, simply because "I don't understand", then having to make me repeat myself in different ways just because you don't feel like reading back on things. The silliest part about it is actually the semi nonsense you're replying with:

    I know your system allows it to happen, but the fair part isn't debatable.

    I see, so the 2 players can ruin games for the other 20 players on the server, yes, a few days ago you said I had no clue what I was talking about, but now that you put it this way instead of just saying "2 players are able to ruin a complete match by using the system as it is intended" it completely sounds like something a balancer should be capable of doing.

    You fail to address for whom this gives more choice. As you've already have shown in your presentation, there is actually less choice than a number balancer because certain players count for more and can dictate what multiple players that add up to the same rating have to choose as team. If you ignore the little last come first serve rule, with the number balancer every player has equal chances to joining a team, where yours doesn't always allow that, theres no way going around this.

    Good argument, why didn't I think of that before. Maybe you should change your carreer to a pimp or something similar, point a gun to a prostitues face and tell her no one is making her fuck the fat guy. I was truly convinced of your point when I read that line, honest.

    Aah yes, a 100 rating person is forced to go against 15, yes, a very good argument, Thank you for pointing out the stuff I said when I didn't understand the system! It's all so clear now!

    I see, the jokes on me now. What team skill are we talking about? The one thats flawed, or the one where you can't prove it works?
    I didn't realise how boring it must've sounded to you. Exactly the same system as you're creating, except it doesn't actually force anything. What a piece of crap, it's all forgiving and crap, down with the sympathiser.

    It's a great joke, but lets for a second say you're serious about this as an alternative, and you actually thought this would work. Would you think anyone would think a balancer would be the right thing for you to work on? It doesn't seem like you have ever set foot on the internet. (just joking ;))
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2010
  2. soundspawn

    soundspawn Member

    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Too much wall of text... won't even bother addressing it all. You are half trolling and all back to not being constructive, and you are focusing on the minority event (such as 2v20) and acting like that's what it would do every time.

    Here's the part you totally missed: IF 2v20 was balanced, then the only way those two players could NOT stack is by being on opposite teams... we're talking about two gods and 20 totally useless players... It's an exception as you and I both agree, yet you base half of your wall of text on it as if it were going to be the norm. Are you suggesting that instead of 2v20 it should have been 10v10 (2 best players in empires and 8 total retards vs 10 total retards)? That's even worse that 2v20 because the 2 don't need that kind of help, it would be a total massacre.

    Seriously either put in your last word and lock the thread, or quit posting trolling shit. Where's the constructive anything in your post? You're just ranting, and the few "points" you do try to make are wrong because you have target fixation on the extreme example you made up.

    "I see, so the 2 players can ruin games for the other 20 players on the server, yes, a few days ago you said I had no clue what I was talking about, but now that you put it this way instead of just saying "2 players are able to ruin a complete match by using the system as it is intended" it completely sounds like something a balancer should be capable of doing."
    No, they can ruin it for themselves... the 2 players, as you pointed out, won't be able to be everywhere at once, so they shouldn't have joined the same team. It won't ruin anything for the 20 guys that get to team up on them... if anything it will give them laughs. Also note, this is an unrealistically extreme scenario so there should be a rather extreme result.
     
  3. Dubee

    Dubee Grapehead

    Messages:
    8,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hey spawwn since i played tonight has my rank increased?
     
  4. recon

    recon SM Support Dev

    Messages:
    2,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We need to hard code you to 9001.

    @Spawn: You need to have a limit for the number gap. 2 v 20 is kind of insane. It can't happen in production.
     
  5. dizzyone

    dizzyone I've been drinking, heavily

    Messages:
    5,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess you're too caught up in you EPIC campfire stories too wake up and get back to reality.

    I wish you good luck with your little EPIC campfire pet project. Don't let it get in your way that its the most flawed system you could possibly have.


    For the record, I never said those things would happen every match, but they can happen and they can ruin games. You won't be there to fix it. Try reading instead of making assumptions. It also doesn't matter that you reply saying I'm trolling, you've actually confirmed every negative side to this balancer yourself, and instead of giving solutions, you say it's not that bad and that I should stop overreacting. So I'm taking your answer, just like before, as you working on nothing but some silly little project that has nothing to do with either balance or fun for everyone.

    Anyone reading this topic should stop thinking that this is the plugin they're looking for if they want improved balance. It's not, this is some weird little plugin a few people want because of some weird fantasy they have to control gameplay by team balance.

    If you're unsure what this plugin does, heres an accurate description: "Have you ever sat by an EPIC campfire and heard about all those awesome 10vs40 unbalanced games that ended up being won by the smaller team? This plugin will try to allow those little gems that rarely happen, to happen more often! It's stacktacular good! You might not win with lower numbers, but we'll ensure that the unbalance can happen so you can have some of the good times too!"

    To be honest, I'm looking forward to any real release, I hope you do get there. Partly so I can cry about all the missed oppurtunities that do make sense, and partly because it's lulz ensured.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2010
  6. dizzyone

    dizzyone I've been drinking, heavily

    Messages:
    5,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your whole balancer is focusing on the minority.
    And no, I was pointing out the flaws, whether those are minorities or not, your plugin will allow them to happen. Even if 1 in 20 games was ultimately ruined because of this balancer, you'd still have to question whether a balancer that can do that, should be made. Because if it can happen once, it can happen as many times as the possibility exists.

    I didn't miss that, I read your post perfectly fine.

    2 gods or not, the game doesn't allow them to win, it's impossible for them to win unless the other 20 have never played before. (more talking about 2000+ rating, rather than every single of the 20 having minus < 100 rating)
    Not only that, the game is ruined for everyone as everyone is playing that match, not just the 2 of them. When one 1 guy griefs, he ruins the game for everyone, not just for himself.

    Actually I was suggesting that 1 skilled player went on NF and the other on BE, 1+9 vs 1+9. That's balanced. People might think that your plugin will be actually do this. You should tell them that your plugin does nothing like it. Didn't you read the whole le mans thing? Didn't you read the part where I talked about true balance. How do you intend to discuss things if you don't read my side? Are you such a fucking smart guy that you can guess what I'm saying without reading my posts?



    I pointed out the flaws in your system, that's constructive, I suggested a different system. I translated the things you've said differently so you could see them from another perspective. Lots of constructive criticism if you bothered to actually read it.

    And you're saying the extreme can't happen? Because I'm pretty sure all I was saying is that your balancer could possibly allow them to happen, I never discussed their frequency because it doesn't matter.

    The other points were actually your own, I just rewrote them from another POV so you could get an idea why it is a bad thing.


    But they can, and just by being able to do it, they can ruin games.
    Your balancer allows them to ruin games.

    This is a joke, it won't ruin the game? 2vs20? I'm sure you would enjoy being on the team of 20, laughing your ass off. This game is lost, one team is fighting no enemy, and can steamroll their barracks and they move on to the next map. That's a ruined game. People like shooting etc, they like what makes this game good. And the part where this game is good is when you have enemies to fight.

    This isn't a theoretical mindgame, this is a real FPS RTS hybrid.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2010
  7. Deiform

    Deiform Member

    Messages:
    2,492
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    EPIC played 20v40 pubbers a while ago. EPIC won easily, and was fun for both sides (or was for the 20 EPIC guys anyway). There has to be a limit somewhere, you can't apply a balancing plug-in and hope it applies to every situation.

    Some balancing suggestions would work for large games, but not for small ones, so really it needs to be dynamic if done at all.
     
  8. soundspawn

    soundspawn Member

    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More walls I won't read, more lies/misinterperetations that some people will believe because the threads too long now to expect them to go through it all.

    1+9 vs 1+9 is exactly what the plugin would do, that invalidates everything you wrote that I bothered to skim over.

    @Dubee
    Yes, I altered the plugin to catch some exceptions and currently you are in the top half of ratings. There are still exceptions that need caught.

    @Recon
    Yes, a limiter will need to be in for obvious reasons.
     
  9. dizzyone

    dizzyone I've been drinking, heavily

    Messages:
    5,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the teambalancer will also do 1+9 vs 1+9.

    Don't worry, threads over.
     
  10. ScardyBob

    ScardyBob Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think this is the core of your argument. If you don't believe skill stacking is a serious problem in Empires, then it makes no sense to have a skill balancing plugin. I believe it is one of the biggest problems in Empires and, hence, why some sort of skill balancer is absolutely necessary.
     
  11. blizzerd

    blizzerd Member

    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so yea, can anyone look up the total math involved?
     
  12. Trickster

    Trickster Retired Developer

    Messages:
    16,576
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    e=mc^2.
     
  13. dizzyone

    dizzyone I've been drinking, heavily

    Messages:
    5,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wrote that sentence wrong, I was trying to say "I'll tell you whats wrong with skill stacking and unbalancing the numbers" and then I gave the example of having the guy leave right after comm vote, leaving the lower rated players to fight a 9 vs 15.

    I've suggested a better system to deal with skill stacking. Don't be confused, this balancer will not fix stacking, it's a different approach to skill stacking. If you read what spawwn said, you'd know that his system isn't made to fix stacking. It allows it and infact allows it to dictate how the game will go. It completely changes the nature of pub play as the ratings will change during matches, where a losing team can have more players on their team, and where a skill stack means you lose freedom of choice as they're skilled and are stacking.

    Having a system like you have in auto sport is what I suggested, I'll repeat it if you like:

    Based on the player count and the players currently connected or still connecting, it divides both teams in 3 categories: high end, mid and low end (ratings). If theres 4 high end players in that game, it will allow 2 of them to join NF and 2 BE. if theres 3 of them, it will still allow 4 high end players total, 2 per team, but this could be dealt with for instance by changing the high end slot for 1 or 2 mid slots.


    So lets say you have the following players in Unassigned:

    4 high rated (dubee, mashav, zeke, pickled)

    6 mid rated

    2 low rated (apwall, sgtmike)


    In this case, both BE and NF would have 2 slots for high end, 3 slots for mid, and 1 for low. How to deal with uneven numbers isn't hard.

    All players have equal chances of joining the team they like, and it will not be based on which team the high rated player will join, it will prevent stacking as best as it can and it is much easier to deal with it's side effects.

    I didn't make up this system, it exists and it works great. If you're looking for a system that deals with skill stacking without removing freedom of team choice, this is the far better system. It also scales up and down according to what ratings are in the game, as well as that it will actually try to fix stacking and obey to the golden rule of having even numbers.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2010
  14. ScardyBob

    ScardyBob Member

    Messages:
    3,457
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I like it. Best of all it could still incorporate spawwn's rating system. Just make the groups into ratings based on HighestScore/3. So if pickled was the no.1 player in spawwn's system with a score of 600 then the
    high rating group = 400-600 points
    mid rating group = 200-400 points
    low rating group = 0-200 points

    However, what would happen if there are an uneven number of grouped players like
    3 high rated
    6 mid rated
    2 low rated?

    Could there be something like 1 high rated = 2 mid rated = 4 low rated? Therefore, in this case the teams would be

    BE = 2 high, 2 mid, 2 low
    NF = 1 high, 4 mid, 2 low
     
  15. blizzerd

    blizzerd Member

    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so yea, soundspawn could you give me the math involved? i want to grind the numbers ^^
     
  16. OuNin

    OuNin Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hand-issued ratings plox
     
  17. recon

    recon SM Support Dev

    Messages:
    2,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's a reason he's not going to give it to you.

    /agree with ScardyBob
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2010
  18. soundspawn

    soundspawn Member

    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have a hybrid of this concept already in the works (ask Trickster, he convinced me to include it)... it's the reason everyone was grouped into 6 categories... Give the groups values (1 - 3) and balance based off this while still using real ratings to determine which group a player belongs to.

    The difference between what I was going to do and this suggestion is that this suggestion assumes specs will play, and actually enforces "balance" based on that assumption. Big no no for a game that frequents so many specs.

    For example, 4/6/2 (high/mid/low rated players). Now 2 highs join BE because they can, 3 mids join BE because they can, and 1 mid + 1 low join NF. Now everyone else stays in spec... so it's a "balanced" 5v2 with the 5 being the best 5 playing and the 2 being the worst. It's not a bad starting concept, but you cannot expect (or even calculate based off the assumption) that spectators will join. You have to use the teams already formed and make a best guess about if it's okay or not.
     

Share This Page