| 1 |
Even if it were the objective @DeinFreund's logic is fatally flawed; there is no particularly good reason to believe that [b]in a game where the number of players on each team is uneven[/b] giving the commander to the most average player is a good idea with respect to [b]any[/b] useful metric.
|
1 |
Even if it were the objective @DeinFreund's logic is fatally flawed; there is no particularly good reason to believe that [b]in a game where the number of players on each team is uneven[/b] giving the commander to the most average player is a good idea with respect to [b]any[/b] useful metric.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Note that I do not consider "the average rating on each team" a useful metric in this case. It does a reasonable job of standing in for "overall skill of the team" and hence determining "the predictions of the balance algorithm" when the teams are even, but when one team has more people and can split their attention more ways the assumption doesn't hold up.
|
3 |
Note that I do not consider "the average rating on each team" a useful metric in this case. It does a reasonable job of standing in for "overall skill of the team" and hence determining "the predictions of the balance algorithm" when the teams are even, but when one team has more people and can split their attention more ways the assumption doesn't hold up.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
(The game does have to be small enough and/or of high enough skill level that the APM factor actually matters.)
|
5 |
(The game does have to be small enough and/or of high enough skill level that the APM factor actually matters.)
|
|
|
6 |
\n
|
|
|
7 |
EDIT: To take an edge-case example, in a game with three players rated 1800, 1900 and 2000 it seems fairly obvious to me that the most balanced and reasonable teams will be the two weaker players against the stronger player.
|
Force even teams option