Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Post edit history

Alternative balance

To display differences between versions, select one or more edits in the list using checkboxes and click "diff selected"
Post edit history
Date Editor Before After
4/14/2014 1:04:53 AMGBrankTheEloIsALie before revert after revert
Before After
1 [quote]Its better to simply rank the players from highest to lowest and assign from them to teams, if your objective is a fun and balanced match.[/quote] 1 [quote]Its better to simply rank the players from highest to lowest and assign from them to teams, if your objective is a fun and balanced match.[/quote]
2 It is trivial to prove this wrong. 2 It is trivial to prove this wrong.
3 \n 3 \n
4 Just given the order of player's elo (not the elo themselves, just as you suggested), you cannot conceive a matching algorithm that creates balanced games for all cases. 4 Just given the order of player's elo (not the elo themselves, just as you suggested), you cannot conceive a matching algorithm that creates balanced games for all cases.
5 \n 5 \n
6 Just as an example, the player elos 1900, 1701, 1700, 1501, 1500, 1300 need to be balanced differently than the elos 1901, 1900, 1701, 1700, 1501, 1500, but they would inevitable yield identical matchups with your approach. 6 Just as an example, the player elos 1900, 1701, 1700, 1501, 1500, 1300 need to be balanced differently than the elos 1901, 1900, 1701, 1700, 1501, 1500, but they would inevitable yield identical matchups with your approach ( since the elo order is the same) .