Team Balancing

[linger]

i kinda liked unixs idea hers was good make it work and then were in buisness

[Unix]

Start with the lanc's, that'll at least get it in the right direction and if that's not enough, then classify rushers. Best and overall easiest way to do it, rather than letting some module or something do it.

[Suicide_Run]

How would you rank a lanc anyways? Wont really do much besides forcing only 1 lanc per team due to fear of getting evened.

 

The value point wont work, too many loop holes in getting those "value points"

[Unix]

Based upon opinions and logical and mathematical reasoning. Human based, not purely ?money or ?shipitems based.

[Kilo]

When is any of this going to be put into action?

When you finish coding it.

[Exiili]

This "lanc-rating" thingy sounds awesome to me. We should give it a shot.

But what are we going to do when you get tired of ranking people

[Unix]

Lol... No one will get tired of ranking people..

 

It's called the human ego

 

Case in point, Arnk Dylie

[Suicide_Run]

Problem with human ranking is what you think is good might not apply to what someone else thinks.

 

I can see it already....bunch of people are gonna start treating the ranker as a god, trying to suck up to him to get a good ranking D=

[Unix]

It's not just one person though, it's a group or something. It's impossible for one person to rank everyone, not only that, this is only opinion and changes all the time.

[vetta64]

is it possible to even the teams based on exp.

 

then you could have a max # of exp per team and one team would be like 30 noobs, and the other 7 vets or something better

[Unix]

Exp doesnt equate to skill or what not.

[Matrim Cauthon]

some people restart to lower their exp and make more money

[Kilo]

Team balancers are never based on skill level, only on objective power potential, which is why most balancers treat 1 person the same as any other. However because of this zone that's not realistic. A team might still be uneven even if the objective "ratings" were equal, but at least it would be a fairish game.

[Unix]

To make it more fair, wouldnt it be better to use human ratings than a machine/bot/module/whatever rating. That way someone doesnt try and byp!@#$%^&* the machine. And it wouldnt have to be as large of a scale, instead of everyone in HS, it would only be like 10% of the population.

[Kilo]

No? Who would do the ratings, you? You are not objective, and no human is. If your concern is "byp!@#$%^&*ing" the machine, then let them, they're going to have to cripple themselves to do it.

[Unix]

That's why a group of people would do it, not just one or two.

[Kilo]

That's hilariously bad. Imagine if I rated someone as bad and you rated someone as good, does that make them average? No, it means nothing at all, it's useless.

[Suicide_Run]

Not to mention besides what Arnk/I have said about how different people rate others differently. Humans are biased and can be influenced.

 

They might rate a person they know or a friend higher than they should have. They also may have only seen the player play badly while others seen a player play really well.

[Dr Brain]

We may someday use an automated system based on exp, but a manual system will never happen.

[linger]

lawls at brain kills everyones ideas <3 brain

[Aishi]

Flaws:

1.It wont work

2.^

3.^

4.^

5.^

[QUAX]

LOL @ Server crashes evening the teams.