Jump to content

vinme

Community Members
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

vinme last won the day on March 4

vinme had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

19 Good

About vinme

  • Rank
    Discens

Previous Fields

  • First Name
    ted
  • Last Name
    kaczynski
  • Skype ID
    didnt i already get asked for skype?

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    and shoot..nohomo
  • MSN
    i rly dont know any of these gay contact methods except skype and yahoo
  • Website URL
    http://hemansings.com/ omg i pray
  • ICQ
    VERY gay name for a company
  • Yahoo
    said the gay cowboy
  • Jabber
    gay name for whatever platform it is
  • Skype
    who tf uses skype always laggy as hell and gay

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Baghdad, Iraq
  • Interests
    suffering in silence,0ad

Recent Profile Visitors

889 profile views
  1. i mean accuracy ect. i remember i asked about production rates,tower ranges a lot of misinformation in the game so was wondering where i can see the actual info not only for units but for any other stuff i or anyone also curious who reads this thread might wanna read?
  2. win/loss would be irrelevant only rating would matter. list of opponents wise i try to play vs as high rated opponents as possible im 99% sure i have always refused playing anyone below 150 rated than me. rn i try not to play any1 less than 100 ratings lower than me. also i play too many times when i wasnt feeling good ect so that adds to the number of total games and the number of total losses.
  3. still nothing compared to @borg- s 1153 total rated games but 500 still above average.ironically if i played far less rated games like 300-400 id be much higher rated XD.
  4. @Marcus Aurelius im not participating as ive said b4. ive stopped following the whole thing tbh. good luck tho hope it goes well.
  5. 1v1 can properly show a players actual SKILL in 0ad as it shows how good a player is at 0ad period .eco military endurance and every other vital but irrelevant in in of itself stat perfectly balanced out by this magical formula that we call actually playing the fucing game and seeing results. it does not show the players efficiency on factors that only come in team games such as but not limited to: 1.being a team player(giving res for various reasons,communicating,coordinating attacks ect) 2.the map being different in team games the edge players are much closer for example in tgs(played mainland normal) compared to standard mainland played small(or other maps that r becoming more mainstream for 1v1 like wrench,cross gr8 maps btw)that have similar distances to small mainland and the inside players being i guess even further from closest enemies than a med size mainland 1v1) 3.the game mechanic completely changes in a TG as you cannot as successfully counter a rush by making towers,making more men as enemy can just leave and attack your adjacent ally leaving you wasting a lot of res your and your teams only option is to counterattack that enemy roughly speaking.since edge players are close lower distance= higher incentive for early on aggression. 4.cav have a lot more value in tgs as mobility= you can move to target and change targets much quicker).cavrushes have more power in tgs as you can change targets if one spends enough on prevention. making a "tg elo" is very difficult because stats don't necessarily correlate with anything.someone might have 1/5KD but it only happened because ally was taking all the beating.this obvious issues are very well understood by all of the players.i think i read some thread where someone made a tg elo it took bunch of tgs and used some formula i cant recall. i suppose averaging out tg wins/losses and also taking into account total team power based on something like my formula can somehow show someones tg skill as you need another factor(actual rating being a great one) to in relation to it show tg skill. either way we shouldn't wanna balance teams based on a tg skill taken into account as that's what we want the competition to be in i'm hoping.the whole point of this is to just make sure no op teams are formed by the factor of just brute skill and to encourage anything that affects team skill to lead to success.if we take into account tg skill when balancing then we are punishing the tg skilled players.yes we want even(er) matches but we also want a goal for all the teams to strive for and for a winner to have VALUE as they have accomplished something that isn't arbitrary this something being their superior skill in team playing(not in pure 0ad skill which i'm trying to eliminate with these methods i'm proposing) you are not seeing the full picture or even the point of what i'm trying to do. btw tell me why my concept is wrong. id wanna take out actual 0ad skill out of the equation to make this a "team tournament" that rewards best "teams" in team skill.
  6. i was thinking 1000 is a good level to cut of from the rating as anyone below 1000 doesn't even know how the game works.but maybe we should go even lower i think there isn't enough difference in points tho maybe for 1000-1200 compared to each other so 2 1100 would easily beat a 1200 i'm assuming so maybe we should cut off a bit less so like 800 so that way does this work? so lets compare same(in this case an 1100=3 points 1200=4) i'm very unfamiliar with lower rated player levels in relation to each other especially does 4 1100 = 3 1200 ? i think it does i guess i'm guessing most optimal level is 800-1000 cutoff best. if we don't cut off anything at all then there's an obvious problem like stockfish doesn't=2 1000 s def later on points represent the actual relevant ratings i was thinking maybe we add a flat point so every player starts with 1 point and then they get added based on original 1000type points system.for example borg(i'm guessing Vrating will be 2300) would get 14 points(out of 24 as TPA will rise by 4 if this is added) as 1+ (2300-1000)=14 this would fix the issue with ratings just being nonlinear at the very least at the beggining and fix the graph. def questionable if 1900 = 1300 for example id bet on the 1900 and with this system 1300s are worth more. so maybe you get 1 point (or more) flat at start and every 100 ratings after a certain high level point like 1800= 2 or something
  7. i'm thinking lets make it mandatory for every participant to get a Vrating and then just set up the balance based on that. if we subtract 1000 from the players rating (example 1600-1000=600) and divide that by 100 (600/100=6) we can get the points worth for the player. cant get negative scores so anyone below 1000 will be a 0 point player the issues though are the following: 1:what would you want to be the average rating of all players per team? 2:the ratings aren't necessarily linearly balanced. do for example 2 1500's = 1 2000 ? 2 1100= 1 1200 ? 3 1300= 1 1900 ? tbh it often works good enough now that i look at it. main factors to consider are: 1:what to subtract from the base Vrating to make ratings linearly balanced and if its not possible to do this although i'm guessing it is then we should use some other formula. like for example 1000-1300 each 100 ratings = 2 points and 1600-2500 each 100 rating= 2 points .something like this might work. 2: what do you want an average rating of a tournament team to be? 1500? 1400? 1300? i'm guessing its best to have something average even low enough so many "good" players cant get together so that everyone can more easily get included so that teams will have to have some weaker players as well. if you think this is a horrible idea as then tournament will be filled with unskilled players and good players will be then id highly recommend setting the average to 1500-1700. as you can see math can be done.it'll be simple math.everything seems to fit together decently after we decide.for example if we want a team average of a 1500 and we have decided that the ratings are linearly balanced then we can multiply 4 by the number of points that 1500 converts to(lets say -1000 was accurate as well) so (1500-1000)/100=5 and 5*4=20 this gives us the total points per team. for 3v3s and 2v2s we will have to divide total points in half or multiply by 3/4 to get the 2v2 and 3v3 TPA 15 and 10 respectively.
  8. thats true @MarcusAureliu#s smaller the time bracket less people will play! that is what you said and you are 100% correct but consider THIS.for the EXACT same reason that less ppl will play in bracket matches..for the exact same reason you will have shitton of issues with your matchups. you cant eat the cake and have it too. if you make 2 tournaments or more you can get all of the market as ive mentioned in my long comment. do polar opposites and then arrange a 1v1(but lets not even consider that as then both tournaments need equal players and that wont be likely) with the champs if you want. brackets have more reasons other than only letting players who are free then play.in option 1 they also only let players who have enough time so to agree to a matchup play.very important as well. edit:polar opposite example 12 am-6pm 12pm-6am
  9. i'm genuinely trying to help.badosu pls read my post XD i was so sleep deprived took me hour and a half to put together itll take 5 min to read.looks long cuz quotes and skipped lines
  10. i mean any just taped together design will work but if you want max outreach dont try to take everything at once. pick a time bracket from most popular 0ad playing stats (idk if thoes exist if not ask around when are most ppl around) and do option 1 on it. solves all the problems. im assuming you didnt read my thing because you thought it was too long but i mention there that even 1v1s have significant issues with matchups and such especially in no restrictions/conditions tournaments let alone teamgames even 2v2 increases that problem 4 FUCVVING times because first 1 player has to agree to another then third has to agree to these 2 and then fourth has to agree to these 3. like if 1v1 working without any restrictions average chance was lets say 60-70% then 60/4= 15% it wont work. please consider adding restrictions.
  11. trust me on this you dont wanna rely on players good will. a large amount of games will get messed up and youll have alot of stuff to deal with. really really bad idea. its been done b4. ive explained alternatives.making someone from japan play someone from USA is a really bad idea. it causes all sorts of issues . you NEED time brackets now choosing option 1 i wrote about or option 2 is the question tbh. i recommend option 1 its faster
  12. @Marcus Aurelius check out my post in the Vrating . as for making the proper balanced tier list we can use the same method i used in my Vrating. a vote anyone can give their idea on the new thread you should make (since you had the original idea) just make ppl write their opinions based on the 18(was 12)total points for 4v4 system make them do it based on ranks like 1300-1500 example. id write my example too.it wont be too complicated to make everything balanced its pretty clear to most people how player levels relate to each other i raised to 18 to make it easier to do. as we def dont want 2 of the gold tier guys to be in the same team.but also if in 2v2 where point levels are 9 total in this case it means if lets say feld and 3 others were in a team and then 2 left and feld and 1 other person had to play then they might not fit because of the imbalance with the points issue(lets say feld is 8 but def should be 9) id say its fair tho to let feld play alone vs lets say 2 1400s or something or whatever makes up 9 points.with 0 point payer feld could have an ally even. worst case some will go under it but this will be an even more fun thing to add as now team leaders have to find proper level players for every scenario to max their chances so instead of 8/9 they use 9/9 there should be 0 point rateds too tho below 1200 or something if you allow that level.
  13. @Marcus Aurelius not rly complicated. half the players half the points third the players third the points just have to make max for 4v4 something that divides by 3 and 2 like 12 . so in 4v4 12 is limit , in 3v3 8 in 2v2 6 ez.please dont give up on even teams idea itll be great and make things really interesting with every match being balanced.
  14. ok its way clearer than my last post. but i did well.
  15. its very clear.as short as possible given the info.
×
×
  • Create New...