Posts: 332
Threads: 44
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
4
How about just not caring about balanced games and instead removing giveup, disabling chat so people can't flame while providing them with a palette of predefined chat commands, and making it more fun to defend your base?
At the moment I think it's not so much about balance if a game is fun. If there are people with a ton of skill on both sides it might be unbalanced but can still be fun. Even if both sides are totally unbalanced it might be fun. Also, some players skill varies greatly between days ( mine does extremely so - from about 9 to 2 on a scale from 10 to 0 ), which you can't measure with any system. Also it very much depends what you're playing for - most of the time I just try to have fun. If I want to win I pick different tanks, different tactics etc. Shortrange porter for example. But that tactic is already extremely boring to me, so I don't play it for fun.
Just my .50 cents.
Getting used to the Sand everywhere. At least it brings us map updates.
Posts: 325
Threads: 39
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
8
(2012-04-03, 23:18:37)griffin1987 Wrote: How about just not caring about balanced games and instead removing giveup, disabling chat so people can't flame while providing them with a palette of predefined chat commands, and making it more fun to defend your base?
NO
Posts: 187
Threads: 13
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation:
0
I've just had 4 losses in a row, all due to having guys with < 10 ranked games on my team, in fact in one of them I had 3 guys with less than 10 ranked games in.
It makes absolutely no sense to have them start with 1500 ELO. Balancing needs to take more into account number of games played and win:loss ratios.
There are guys out there who have a great Kill:Death ratio but more losses than wins. They are like cancer to their team by farming and not helping defend, or buying weapons instead of a tank. I don't think anyone with me losses than wins should have over 1500 ELO. This doesn't make sense at all.
- Rob
Former Chieftain of Clan toaf on US EAST *Retired*
Just playing for the fun of it now.
Posts: 363
Threads: 24
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
5
Sad Gen you're so blind.
I just had game with you. We played heli(4khp)+heli+medi(4khp)+ghost+skytank vs tree+frost+ghost+heavy+skyship and you obviously waited for your hunter-lover (wich u sux with even tho u played like 1k or more games with it) no carring about that we loosing cps. u got it in 43min while they were raping base and u blame guys with 10games? don't be ridiculous.
Posts: 187
Threads: 13
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation:
0
2012-04-10, 03:51:25
(This post was last modified: 2012-04-10, 03:59:12 by GEN_Schwarzkopf.)
Wow progg, thanks for randomly flaming me! This thread is a discussion about game balance.
If you're going to add to the discussion please read the thread or my post and respond to the idea. If just going to attack a person and not the idea you should not be posting here at all.
You should not have a reputation of 3 if you want to randomly jump into a discussion to tell a league member they are blind and that they sux. This behavior should no longer be tolerated in the forum.
The point I was making is simple:
http://league.btanks.net/game.php?gameid=29493
The medivac on our team (ILDM) was 0-4 in ranked, while the guy with the 2nd lowest ELO on their team (trekki) was 240-238, and their lowest ELO (Alton) was 246-242. Cro-Ownage, also on their team is 368-320, a really good win:loss ratio, yet had an ELO of 1485.
It is baffling how a guy with hundreds or rated games logged with more wins than losses can have the same or less ELO than a guy who is 0-4.
So the only thing I'm getting at is that we may want to have ELO formula use number of games won and win:loss ratio into consideration.
This concept has received some support if you'd read the rest of this thread. It's really a question of implementation.
- Rob
Former Chieftain of Clan toaf on US EAST *Retired*
Just playing for the fun of it now.
Posts: 363
Threads: 24
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
5
And the point of my post was that there are some guys thousands of games played and they arn't better than the guys with 10 games.
Posts: 29
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation:
0
(2012-04-10, 03:51:25)GEN_Schwarzkopf Wrote: http://league.btanks.net/game.php?gameid=29493
The medivac on our team (ILDM) was 0-4 in ranked, while the guy with the 2nd lowest ELO on their team (trekki) was 240-238, and their lowest ELO (Alton) was 246-242. Cro-Ownage, also on their team is 368-320, a really good win:loss ratio, yet had an ELO of 1485.
trekki (1) 1377.21 1470.89 93.68 240 238 84
cRo_ownage (1) 1398.57 1493.99 95.42 368 320 94
Leaving games gives greater loss of elo than playing till end, also people just need to stop making multi accounts and we wouldn't have such a problem.
Posts: 363
Threads: 24
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
5
Actually i had an idea how to make League single-account only.
It's about 3rd party program wich checks your identity. These kind of programs were use in counter-strike in pre-steam era to prevent cheating, but i think program like this can allow to play on one account only from one computer.
I'm just afraid lot of people wouldn't want to install it.
Posts: 48
Threads: 9
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
2
Why there is a elo-systems who give all in winners team elo+ and all in loosers team elo-. Why dont there is a overall game elo-system in which good players get elo+ doesnt matter the team they are in. So i think more players will have more fun and not loosing moral that fast. And good players wont loose elo bc other team get a leaver and had better chance to win. And why its depend on old elo how much there will win or loose, if someone is better then another one he schould get more elo, not bc he has more old elo so he got less new elo points. This way i think more players wont use fake accounts bc they can get points if there loose or win.
Posts: 460
Threads: 41
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
8
2012-04-11, 19:31:07
(This post was last modified: 2012-04-11, 19:32:09 by Max.)
(2012-04-11, 19:02:01)Crag_Hack Wrote: Why there is a elo-systems who give all in winners team elo+ and all in loosers team elo-. Why dont there is a overall game elo-system in which good players get elo+ doesnt matter the team they are in. So i think more players will have more fun and not loosing moral that fast. And good players wont loose elo bc other team get a leaver and had better chance to win. And why its depend on old elo how much there will win or loose, if someone is better then another one he schould get more elo, not bc he has more old elo so he got less new elo points. This way i think more players wont use fake accounts bc they can get points if there loose or win.
This would encourage selfish playing. Lot of guys would think : if i play good, even if i win or loose it doesn't matter, i will win ELO points. Then some people will just try to steal all they can, towers, kills, creeps etc... just to up their ELO. And that never made and will never make those people good players, whereas ELO does. This isn't a good solution imo. I still think first idea to balance with average ELO would be a better idea for better balance.
Posts: 363
Threads: 24
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
5
I think idea is great. Only thing we have to do is to figure out how to prevent poeople from ego playing.
Posts: 460
Threads: 41
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
8
(2012-04-12, 02:43:14)progg Wrote: I think idea is great. Only thing we have to do is to figure out how to prevent poeople from ego playing.
Atm there are a lot of ego players, if now you say that you give positive or negative ELO points just on your game performance, ego playing will just grow up. That's why i think this can't be done this way. And how to prevent ego playing? Sounds really hard... But that's just my opinion.
Posts: 48
Threads: 9
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
2
(2012-04-12, 08:22:13)Max Wrote: Atm there are a lot of ego players, if now you say that you give positive or negative ELO points just on your game performance, ego playing will just grow up. That's why i think this can't be done this way. And how to prevent ego playing? Sounds really hard... But that's just my opinion.
Ok but these are need just some balances so maybe the winner team get extra ego-points like +3 and looser -3. And asssist should be count like kills and give money depend of damage, not the guy who get the kill get the most money for it. So if 2 attack 1 and both do 50% damage they both should get 50% of bounty. Ofc it need a time to calculate so maybe damage in 1 min, then we dont need a assist range too, so mines will give the miner money too if he dont stay in assist range. And it only have an maximum of 100% not that a guy stay at cp get attacked and the damagers get 130% bounty. It also could work on buildings with a longer timer like 3 minutes, with a stop if the tower heals more than half of damage in these time by a mech or repair robots.
So we can prevent ego playing or better it doesnt care who take last hit for example by heavy tanks rocket.
Posts: 460
Threads: 41
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
8
(2012-04-12, 13:11:33)Crag_Hack Wrote: (2012-04-12, 08:22:13)Max Wrote: Atm there are a lot of ego players, if now you say that you give positive or negative ELO points just on your game performance, ego playing will just grow up. That's why i think this can't be done this way. And how to prevent ego playing? Sounds really hard... But that's just my opinion.
Ok but these are need just some balances so maybe the winner team get extra ego-points like +3 and looser -3. And asssist should be count like kills and give money depend of damage, not the guy who get the kill get the most money for it. So if 2 attack 1 and both do 50% damage they both should get 50% of bounty. Ofc it need a time to calculate so maybe damage in 1 min, then we dont need a assist range too, so mines will give the miner money too if he dont stay in assist range. And it only have an maximum of 100% not that a guy stay at cp get attacked and the damagers get 130% bounty. It also could work on buildings with a longer timer like 3 minutes, with a stop if the tower heals more than half of damage in these time by a mech or repair robots.
So we can prevent ego playing or better it doesnt care who take last hit for example by heavy tanks rocket.
Sounds good, could work yep. But would it be doable? If it is, then yes, this would work really well !
Posts: 1,494
Threads: 32
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation:
5
How would this work at all? Why should anyone play a real supporter role with that kind of ranking system?
Posts: 363
Threads: 24
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
5
Prog beacous for win u get mor points than for loose. And the point of the game will reamain the same - win.
My first idea for scoring system.
Basic is +2 elo points.
+4/=4 points for win loose.
+4/-4 points for personal performance. (and here BIG bonuses for number of asists and cps caped to prevent ego playing)
Posts: 48
Threads: 9
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
2
2012-04-12, 20:46:02
(This post was last modified: 2012-04-12, 20:47:47 by Crag_Hack.)
also its possible to add support points for elo by healing and creeps so maybe all 10k healed hp by scout rune, medivac, treetank (dont know real name) or factory (players) gives 1 piont, ofc only for healed mates not for itself. And maybe for 100 summond creeps it could give points too.
Posts: 460
Threads: 41
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
8
For cp cap, lot of times when fight is close there is only one man last on cp to cap it, this isn't mean all the time because he plays with 4 ego players. Number of assists it's the same : if a game last 25 min because one team giveup (what happen often), laners got 0, 1 max 2 assists. This can't work in those cases.
Posts: 48
Threads: 9
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
2
2012-04-13, 01:42:37
(This post was last modified: 2012-04-13, 01:45:02 by Crag_Hack.)
(2012-04-12, 22:03:15)Max Wrote: For cp cap, lot of times when fight is close there is only one man last on cp to cap it, this isn't mean all the time because he plays with 4 ego players. Number of assists it's the same : if a game last 25 min because one team giveup (what happen often), laners got 0, 1 max 2 assists. This can't work in those cases.
for the first part just take a timer there too so all get a capture point if the cp are capured in 20 sec after he last stand on, so if i start to capture and die but team take it the next 20 sec i get a point too
for the second i think we should count all things on normal games who are normal 1-1:30h go and in these games i see mostly laners who had closely same amount of assist as the mid players
third i hope it wouldnt give that much giveups bc how longer the games goes that more elo u can gain
Posts: 1,297
Threads: 83
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
16
2012-04-20, 00:24:32
(This post was last modified: 2012-04-20, 00:26:04 by eSVau.)
Currently i dislike just a few things about our ELO system
- players are too close together
- no progress (if u win a game and lose the next it is almost the same like not playing at all - which is directly correlated to the fact that the people too close together)
- u start in the middle
So i did some recalculation of all games with a modified formular with includes a variable K-factor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_...e_K-factor), calculated in my case by k(ELO) = -0.2 * ELO + 500, so it is between 500 and 20 (capped minimum). Also i change the entry ELO to Zero (which is why i made that K-factor varies so much)
The backup is about one week old, this would be the ranking:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/60170936/btl_recalc_ranking.htm
and this how the last few games would look like (the only ELO and Δ (delta) have change)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/60170936/btl_rec...tgames.htm
Links won't work on those static saved pages 
My first impression: i like it more how the players are distributed
Marvin Wrote:The first ten million years were the worst and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million years I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline
|
