next »

[Sic]

Hey just wanted to start some discussion about the current add1,

As of now (correct me if im wrong) the bot takes all people in add1 and tries to make the teams as equal as possible xp-wise, however what U get a lot when a person with a extremely low XP say 500 joins, you get the rare think that 3 of the highest XP players are in the same team. I think, however can only state this from personal experience, that this team is winning roughly 90% of the time by this way of arranging and therefor makes the add1 plays. That are supposed to be balanced rather decided before even playing. Although Ive had some pretty cool games where the team with the medium xp players win.

However I want your opinion about this and maybe discuss for possible change in the way the bot makes the teams...

I thought of the following sollution:

Assume the bot makes the teams based on XP, but instead of trying to make them as close together to eatchother as possible, it goes as follows:

Player 1: 1350 XP
Player 2: 1200 XP
Player 3: 1100 XP
Player 4: 1000 XP
Player 5: 1000 XP
Player 6: 1000 XP
Player 7:  900 XP
Player 8:  900 XP
Player 9:  900 XP
Player 10: 500 XP

Total XP in the game : 9850, Average : 985

Solution one:
Team one: #1, #4, #6, #8, #10 : XP: 4750
Team two: #2, #3, #5, #7, #9: XP: 5100

As you can see there is a big gap between team 1 and team 2 XP.

I'm by no way sure this would solve the problem , however there could be a test run with this and be seen if the games will be challenging at all times.

There could for example be a limit to the amount of XP the teams may differ, like say 400 and else compose teams the old way.

Anyway this isn't a conclusive anwser to the 'problems' so I was wondering if anybody has another idea, or thinks the current way is sufficient.

will post more later however dinner calls :(

[Penguin_]

teams are working fine as it is imo, the only "problem" is high xp people picking a hard carry for themselves then relying on the fact that the other team wont be able to gank them enough (due to lack of coordination or w/e) whilst they megarice

[Zoolander]

The system works as it should.
But ofcourse there will be slighty uneven teams if someone like strangby or any other "close to" 2000xp while the rest in the pool have between 800-1200, the high xp player will end up with the 4 worst players. That's why the really high-xp players don't add1 :)

[NeeeeK]

The system works as it should.
But ofcourse there will be slighty uneven teams if someone like strangby or any other "close to" 2000xp while the rest in the pool have between 800-1200, the high xp player will end up with the 4 worst players. That's why the really high-xp players don't add1 :)

strangby got almost 1.6k! thaha :D

[Zoolander]

The system works as it should.
But ofcourse there will be slighty uneven teams if someone like strangby or any other "close to" 2000xp while the rest in the pool have between 800-1200, the high xp player will end up with the 4 worst players. That's why the really high-xp players don't add1 :)

strangby got almost 1.6k! thaha :D

Ye that's why I said "close to". 

[Sic]

Okidoki then I guess it's just some select group of people that are always 'feeling they are done unjustice by the bot'

[wizz]

Well. There will alwaays be some injustice but no one can do something about it :
- Take a very good player which ends up in one of the team
- The other team has average players but not enough coordination or teamplay to keep the guy from farming
- Overall team vs team , Xp is quite the same, in facts one team can play minimum while relying on its "pro" to carry the game, while the other team can't do much.

Well thats the game

[CrackAttack]

i dont remember well, but somewhere anyone (cip?) said that teams are created due to elo-system, and taht should be the best system, every fuckin chess-programm uses it.

[Sic]

ELO is a good rating system yes, however it is basically used for 1 on 1 skill rating games, like Age of Empires amongst other has it. In 5 on 5 it gets harder since the 5 arent the same 5 players everytime. But overall it does a good job.

[ProduceFootmen]

Well. There will alwaays be some injustice but no one can do something about it :
- Take a very good player which ends up in one of the team
- The other team has average players but not enough coordination or teamplay to keep the guy from farming
- Overall team vs team , Xp is quite the same, in facts one team can play minimum while relying on its "pro" to carry the game, while the other team can't do much.

Well thats the game

+1

[Cip]

Your formula won't make teams more balanced. How do you apply an algorithm on that?

Low xp guys will always be with higher xp guys and viceversa. One 1500 guy can "cary" a 500 xp guy and will balance out at 1000. If ppl are too stupid not to win games when they are at 500 (god knows how bad you should be to reach there), then it's not the algorithm to blame. Blame the noobs who even after hundread of games can't do shit on their own.

[AsSs_]

+1

Ever they arent able to place obs xd

[Dany]

The only problem i have so far, is when people go add+c even tough they have no clue on how to fucking pick. The reason they do this is because they dont wanna be in the bad team since they have low xp or whatever. Imo you should do a restriction to the + captain, lets say 8-900 xp?

[Sic]

conclusion : 100% dont think anything should be done

result: no extra work \o/

topic: dead

Thanks for response.

[Penguin_]

The only problem i have so far, is when people go add+c even tough they have no clue on how to fucking pick. The reason they do this is because they dont wanna be in the bad team since they have low xp or whatever. Imo you should do a restriction to the + captain, lets say 8-900 xp?

adding with +c does nothing to decide on which team you're placed, teams are arranged first via xp and then the captain is decided. If you don't want to have a low xp captain then add+c yourself.