| 1 |
Let me have a go. I think @TinySpider has a pretty reasonable question that hasn't actually been answered. There are a lot of posts (especially from @Anarchid) that seem to assume that @TinySpider knows the answer and is stealthily arguing against it. The farmer analogy isn't helping either.
|
1 |
Let me have a go. I think @TinySpider has a pretty reasonable question that hasn't actually been answered. There are a lot of posts (especially from @Anarchid) that seem to assume that @TinySpider knows the answer and is stealthily arguing against it. The farmer analogy isn't helping either.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
The question is simply:
|
3 |
The question is simply:
|
| 4 |
[b]How can some system claim to improve balance when no actual games have been balanced with it?[/b]
|
4 |
[b]How can some system claim to improve balance when no actual games have been balanced with it?[/b]
|
| 5 |
As far as I can tell nobody has actually answered this question. There are plenty of posts that assume we all know an answer though, and then attempt to justify it. Even if everyone knows the answer, stating it clearly can't hurt.
|
5 |
As far as I can tell nobody has actually answered this question. There are plenty of posts that assume we all know an answer though, and then attempt to justify it. Even if everyone knows the answer, stating it clearly can't hurt.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
The answer everyone is defending here hinges on two claims:
|
7 |
The answer everyone is defending here hinges on two claims:
|
| 8 |
* 1. If you have a system that outputs an accurate win rate when you ask it about two teams of players, then you have all you need to make a good system for multiplayer balance.
|
8 |
* 1. If you have a system that outputs an accurate win rate when you ask it about two teams of players, then you have all you need to make a good system for multiplayer balance.
|
| 9 |
* 2. To evaluate how good a system is at generating accurate win rates, all you need is to run your system on the past history of ZK games, then grade how well it did with a particular scoring system.
|
9 |
* 2. To evaluate how good a system is at generating accurate win rates, all you need is to run your system on the past history of ZK games, then grade how well it did with a particular scoring system.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
These
two
claims
are
how
a
thread
called
"Do
1v1
games
improve
multiplayer
balance"
can
actually
be
about
comparing
two
numbers
generating
by
running
an
algorithm
running
on
a
list
of
ZK
games
and
their
outcomes.
All
improvement
is
assumed
to
be
of
the
form
of
the
score
number
increasing.
There
are
reasonable
arguments
and
counterarguments
for
each
claim
though.
|
11 |
These
two
claims
are
how
a
thread
called
"Do
1v1
games
improve
multiplayer
balance"
can
actually
be
about
comparing
two
numbers
generating
by
running
an
algorithm
running
on
a
list
of
past
games.
All
improvement
is
assumed
to
be
of
the
form
of
the
score
number
increasing.
There
are
reasonable
arguments
and
counterarguments
for
each
claim
though.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
The justification for claim 1 is that, given you have such a system, balancing any new game is just a matter of asking the system about every potential team, then picking the teams that get you closest to 50% win rate. This is pretty reasonable, although note the subtle shift from "good ZK game" to "ZK game with 50% win rate for each team". The system is blind to every other aspect of what makes a good ZK game, so it would be very surprising if it actually generated the best ZK games. The threads about even skill distribution within teams seem to show a practical problem.
|
13 |
The justification for claim 1 is that, given you have such a system, balancing any new game is just a matter of asking the system about every potential team, then picking the teams that get you closest to 50% win rate. This is pretty reasonable, although note the subtle shift from "good ZK game" to "ZK game with 50% win rate for each team". The system is blind to every other aspect of what makes a good ZK game, so it would be very surprising if it actually generated the best ZK games. The threads about even skill distribution within teams seem to show a practical problem.
|
| 14 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
| 15 |
The justification for claim 2 is based on somewhat complicated maths and most likely needs a bunch of caveats to even be true. It is probably approximately right as long as nobody tries to do anything too weird, such as supply a dataset where Team 1 always wins. But who knows. What if the existing algorithm likes to generate a particular type of games with an actual win rate of 50%, a proposed algorithm would generate different games with actual win rates of 50%, but the proposed algorithm is confused by the games produced by the existing one. I haven't seen a solid reason that this couldn't happen.
|
15 |
The justification for claim 2 is based on somewhat complicated maths and most likely needs a bunch of caveats to even be true. It is probably approximately right as long as nobody tries to do anything too weird, such as supply a dataset where Team 1 always wins. But who knows. What if the existing algorithm likes to generate a particular type of games with an actual win rate of 50%, a proposed algorithm would generate different games with actual win rates of 50%, but the proposed algorithm is confused by the games produced by the existing one. I haven't seen a solid reason that this couldn't happen.
|
Do 1v1 games improve multiplayer balance