| 1 |
So... are you saying each player should have an elo value for the pairing with each other player (in the extreme case)? So for 1000 players there would be 1 million values?
|
1 |
So... are you saying each player should have an elo value for the pairing with each other player (in the extreme case)? So for 1000 players there would be 1 million values?
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
This
system
might
have
some
substance
for
a
small
player
base
like
ours
were
the
same
people
are
playing
together
constantly.
But
if
the
only
balance
information
you're
using
is
"how
much
did
player
x
win
with
player
y"
the
system
falls
apart
as
soon
as
x
and
y
don't
see
each
other
more
than
a
handful
of
times.
|
3 |
This
system
might
have
some
benefits
for
a
small
player
base
like
ours
where
the
same
people
are
playing
together
constantly.
But
if
the
only
balance
information
you're
using
is
"how
much
did
player
x
win
with
player
y"
the
system
falls
apart
as
soon
as
x
and
y
don't
see
each
other
more
than
a
handful
of
times.
|
| 4 |
In other words: "Training" the system (as in "finding everybody's elo") will take a massive amount of games (well, unless we keep at it with 12v12). Not to mention that you're giving up on some measure of "general competence" (what elo currently represents) in favor of measuring only the player synergy.
|
4 |
In other words: "Training" the system (as in "finding everybody's elo") will take a massive amount of games (well, unless we keep at it with 12v12). Not to mention that you're giving up on some measure of "general competence" (what elo currently represents) in favor of measuring only the player synergy.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
The idea is cool and might actually have potential in the current scenario, but is that what we want to settle on?
|
6 |
The idea is cool and might actually have potential in the current scenario, but is that what we want to settle on?
|
Balancer broken?