Evener still broken

[Lone Outlaw]

lol Unix first idea i've seen that is worse than my idea of paying programmers by the page.

 

But really, cheese already made a good point, if you make a rating system (besides the ratings being inaccurate not based on actual skill at all, but skewed perceptions and personal favoritism)

 

A rating system will also create a situation where the teams are always pretty much the same.

1. Either they will be the same player wise.

2. They will be the same skill wise (this was your goal, but it's a dumb thing, similar to living in a perfect world, consider if earth was perfect, would you really want to live here?)

3. Two players may never be on the same team if they are rated the same. (possibly for months)

 

A.

Consider if every day the same players are in the zone, every day there will be the same two teams virtually. (Technically every day it pretty much is the same players in a zone at a given time; so say 10:00PM eastern)

Players

1a,1b,2a,2b,3a,3b,4a,4b,5a,5b

 

First team option

Team 1

1a,2a,3a,4a,5a

Team 2

1b,2b,3b,4b,5b

 

Second team option

Team 1

1a,2b,3a,4b,5a

Team 2

1b,2a,3b,4a,5b

 

These are the only 2 real mixes, if you tell the module to alternate players so the same two teams are created daily, then it might work better. But then you'd have to program probability into the module.

Another team is 1a,2b,3b,4b,5b, vs 1b,2a,3a,4a,5a Of course you can see it's virtually the same two teams, with two players alternating spots.

 

And the numbers represent player ratings. So the teams are made so that ratings are equal across both teams.

 

 

B.

Again if two people are rated 5, for example, they may have a chance to switch teams, however, if they are the only players rated 5 who are online, they will likely never face each other. So already two 5's will never get to play with each other unless there are four players online who are rated 5.

 

C.

Supposing it's not the same players everyday, then maybe the teams will be different every time. Then further supposing, there are more than two players rated 5, then maybe 5's will get to play with each other sometimes. Which leads us to the last problem presented by your idea which is that teams will be relatively the same skill wise. The problem here being that it's pretty much boring. It's nice to have some teams differing in skill, to be faced with a challenge, to be so good you can carry 3 new players, and so on.

 

And then again, any system which presumes to judge someones skill, or intelligence is flawed, you can go to University and quickly learn this

1. Generally it's a place for stupid people

2. IQ tests don't measure much (tons of peer reviewed journals on this)

3. Knowledge is not the basis of education but money (for the institution its to take your money, and for most, its to get a degree so they can get a job and make money) Society still has slavery.

4. It's not what you know but either how much time you have, how much detail you put into your essays, or how well you follow instructions (those even being the instructions of how to write a proper essay)

You could have the best essay filled with details, content, amazing ideas, and still only get a B+

 

So again any systems based on ratings are flawed, Just because i get an A+ in school (which i do) doesn't make me any more intelligent than the guy who gets a B or even a C, many smart people are failing, don't even attend school (lots of smart people have no degrees), or it just means i have a different strategy or work harder. (which i generally don't, as lazy as the next guy)

Edited November 17, 2012 by Lone Outlaw

[spidernl]

You're aware that a LOT of good players have negative or barely positive ratios, rigt? The most useless players who would rather let their team's lancaster die than die themselves, on the other hand..

 

Experience, if not ideal, is a lot better. Trust me on this one.

[cxc]

since the evener can only decide on 1 player in a vacum (it has no idea who else might be typing ?flag, or who is about to hit f11 in another .5 seconds) it can never actually work. In order for an evener to work it would need to know all who wish to flag then make teams. or actively move players from team to team. Short of that there will be issues with it.

 

Spider, not sure if you saw my prior post, couple ppl posted after it. Biggest problem with the evener is people abusing it. If their abuse was in the chat log for all to see we may be able to humilate them into stopping it. And if ?flag had the 10 second delay it would make leap frogging onto a freq a lot harder.

Edited November 17, 2012 by cxc

[spidernl]

If you ask me, most of the people who actually succeed at hopping generally know when to ?flag to get right onto the winning team. They're not the ones constantly spectating and ?flagging again.

[spittnacid]

exp is just a measure of how long youve played. even the suckiest player will eventually have alot of exp. i think im a good example. And if most good players have bad ratios too then everyones on the same playing field and the good players will just have less of a crappy ratio. Also those that hide behind lancs to have a good ratio would all be stuck on a team together anyways trying to hide behind each other without any lancs.

 

Maybe this idea is too involved but why not go elementary school with it and pick teams? when someone ?flag s the freq gets to decide by vote of all players on the team, if they want them. If they are voted in they join the freq. If not the other team gets to vote. If the other team doesn't want them either than they dont get to play. Or you can move all those rejects to a loser freq.

Edited November 18, 2012 by spittnacid

[Unix]

It would be nice if we adopted similar modules on picking/kicking/choosing players like HZ does.