| 1 |
@RiposteR if there is a handicap then it is set as follows:
|
1 |
@RiposteR if there is a handicap then it is set as follows:
|
| 2 |
{{{
|
2 |
{{{
|
| 3 |
if lowerWinChance > 0.20 then
|
3 |
if lowerWinChance > 0.20 then
|
| 4 |
autoHandicapValue = 1.1
|
4 |
autoHandicapValue = 1.1
|
| 5 |
elseif lowerWinChance > 0.15 then
|
5 |
elseif lowerWinChance > 0.15 then
|
| 6 |
autoHandicapValue = 1.15
|
6 |
autoHandicapValue = 1.15
|
| 7 |
elseif lowerWinChance > 0.1 then
|
7 |
elseif lowerWinChance > 0.1 then
|
| 8 |
autoHandicapValue = 1.2
|
8 |
autoHandicapValue = 1.2
|
| 9 |
elseif lowerWinChance > 0.05 then
|
9 |
elseif lowerWinChance > 0.05 then
|
| 10 |
autoHandicapValue = 1.25
|
10 |
autoHandicapValue = 1.25
|
| 11 |
else
|
11 |
else
|
| 12 |
autoHandicapValue = 1.3
|
12 |
autoHandicapValue = 1.3
|
| 13 |
end
|
13 |
end
|
| 14 |
}}}
|
14 |
}}}
|
| 15 |
Some of the values aren't used, but they were there in case the maximum lower win chance for a non-handicap game needed tweaking above 17.5%. The absolute elo of both sides is available in this part of the code so it could be bought into the calculation. Doing so crossed my mind, but the numbers are so uncertain already that I thought it best to get some feedback now and refine the equation in future versions.
|
15 |
Some of the values aren't used, but they were there in case the maximum lower win chance for a non-handicap game needed tweaking above 17.5%. The absolute elo of both sides is available in this part of the code so it could be bought into the calculation. Doing so crossed my mind, but the numbers are so uncertain already that I thought it best to get some feedback now and refine the equation in future versions.
|
| 16 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 17 |
People don't seem to think in terms of win probabilities when thinking about whether they'd play a game so I often don't receive much information when I ask about them directly. The initial numbers are gut feelings based on years of occasional conversations/threads about how far up/down the ladder people like to fight, and then working backwards from there.
|
17 |
People don't seem to think in terms of win probabilities when thinking about whether they'd play a game so I often don't receive much information when I ask about them directly. The initial numbers are gut feelings based on years of occasional conversations/threads about how far up/down the ladder people like to fight, and then working backwards from there.
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
|
|
19 |
I would really like it if those that want to go deeper into this feedback would communicate in terms of functions. Like the one above. Functions are good for pinning down an approach - they don't have to be perfect first try.
|
|
|
20 |
\n
|
| 19 |
[q]It would be nice to have the potential to opt out of receiving a handicap, as it makes it harder to improve when the timings and the mexes required to do different things is not constant between games. I don't mind someone getting a handicap against me, but I don't personally want a handicap against anyone. [/q]
|
21 |
[q]It would be nice to have the potential to opt out of receiving a handicap, as it makes it harder to improve when the timings and the mexes required to do different things is not constant between games. I don't mind someone getting a handicap against me, but I don't personally want a handicap against anyone. [/q]
|
| 20 |
Something like this could be hacked into the system. I think it would be more complicated than a simple toggle though as I think there could also be a preference against playing ranked non-handicap uneven games from the position of the higher skill player as well. Adding options to the MM is not free as it can split it or reduce clarity.
|
22 |
Something like this could be hacked into the system. I think it would be more complicated than a simple toggle though as I think there could also be a preference against playing ranked non-handicap uneven games from the position of the higher skill player as well. Adding options to the MM is not free as it can split it or reduce clarity.
|
| 21 |
\n
|
23 |
\n
|
| 22 |
I considered the issue of timings being thrown off by the nature of the handicap and it could be a big issue. Whether to apply the handicap to the higher ranked player, or even both players, was a bit of a toss up. I went with the current system because it makes for rounder numbers, seems to have the least impact on the importance of starting resources, and doesn't slow the game down. Perhaps the fairest system would be a somewhat symmetric system around 100% for both sides, so they both have the issues related to not having a normal economy. Something extra to consider is the relationship between handicaps and constructor speeds.
|
24 |
I considered the issue of timings being thrown off by the nature of the handicap and it could be a big issue. Whether to apply the handicap to the higher ranked player, or even both players, was a bit of a toss up. I went with the current system because it makes for rounder numbers, seems to have the least impact on the importance of starting resources, and doesn't slow the game down. Perhaps the fairest system would be a somewhat symmetric system around 100% for both sides, so they both have the issues related to not having a normal economy. Something extra to consider is the relationship between handicaps and constructor speeds.
|
| 23 |
\n
|
25 |
\n
|
| 24 |
@Brackman I must have missed that, perhaps because it seemed to be about FFA. Given the points @RiposteR raises I don't see a multiplier as a function of ratings difference working.
|
26 |
@Brackman I must have missed that, perhaps because it seemed to be about FFA. Given the points @RiposteR raises I don't see a multiplier as a function of ratings difference working.
|
Zero-K v1.9.6.5 - Handicap and Matchmaking Experiment