Alternative to game quality indicator - Handicaps/Bonuses

Generally speaking, everybody likes the rating system and the game quality indicator as defined by people preferring to keep it or change it than simply play without it. It's not perfect, but it is good. One of the weaknesses of the game quality indicator is that it seems to underweight teams with a large rating difference. For example in 2v2 TMM, a 500 and a 1500 will generally lose against two 1000s significantly more often than the other way around. I propose a novel solution to this problem and a general issue to team balancing: Handicaps and bonuses.

Let's assume that the game intends to balance everybody to 1,000 rating. Players below a rating would be assigned an in-game bonus (perhaps +build speed and +resource generation) to bring them up to the same strength as a 1,000 rating player. Likewise, players rated over 1,000 rating would have a similar penalty to make them about as capable as a 1,000 rating.

This would solve two problems:
1- All games with equal numbers of players on each team would be balanced because, with handicaps/bonuses applied, all players would be approximately equal strength (~1,000 rating).
2- By removing the game quality indicator, the aforementioned issue with high rating differences between same-team players causing the game quality indicator to be inaccurate would be removed.

Here is a suggestion of specific mechanics for the balance/handicap:

• Possible target rating (raise/lower all players to this rating): 1,000
• Possible bonus attribute: Build speed and energy/mass production for all units
• Possible bonus degree: 5% per 100 rating, multiplicative.
• Possible effect of win/loss on rating: Same as before

Example 1v1 match under handicap system: 800 player fights a 2000 player. 800 player receives (1.05)^2 multiplier (1.1025)bonus to all mass and energy production and all build power. The 200 receives a (0.95)^10 multiplier (0.59874) penalty to all mass and energy production and all build power.

Potential downsides to a handicap system:

• May not be suitable for tournament environments
• May disrupt gameplay intuition (8 minutes may be a standard high-skill strat bomber on Setons. A handicap in build time could lower this time.)

Potential alternative handicaps aside from build time/resource generation:

• Health and damage bonuses/penalties
• Vision and radar bonuses/penalties
• Deflection chance (For every hit received, 1 in X chance it does no damage.)
• Starting with pre-built bases

In closing, I encourage people to consider the idea in the above idea not as a replacement for game quality indicator, but as an alternative option that hosts may select in custom games or may be used in TMM.

Your idea is far worse than I could have ever imagined. I commend you for your creativity.

@sinforosa You're just jealous you didn't have this brilliant idea first.

This is at best a sim mod for custom games; it would never be used in anything remotely competitive.

I'd also say I don't get why you're saying that a 1500 beats a 1000 more often than a 1000 beats a 500. If that does happen, it means the trueskill distribution isn't what it should be between those players. Likely one or more of the players are underrated/overrated and so this game outcome results in a more accurate distribution for future games. I don't understand why this would do anything except feed bad game data for trueskill.

so what your saying is we transfer ownership of everything to the lowest rated player and now his t1 tanks have 900 hp each and we just gota scream at him to turn the factories on

1. 500r dude gets x1.5 mass
2. 500r dude continually feeds mass to 1500 teammate
3. ?????
4. profit

Also no idea why you think giving a low rated guy more resources and buildspeed would increase their effective skill, if anything it would turn them into a mass donation machine akin to cheating ai

A 2x cheat multiplier in a game with super fast snowball eco - great reward for gaining rating: your MeX produce half mass and your engis build like half as slow: that’s so hilariously frustrating how can you have any appreciation for the game, the unlimited flow off mass into hives that keeps us going until 5am. You are not a connaissseur

This is literally the plot to Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut...

@ftxcommando I never said this or anything like this. In my experience with TMM, if I (a 1500) am paired with a 500 against two 1000s (a common situations), the two 1000s simply double-team me while the 500 does essentially nothing. If 2v2s divided the map in half and forced separate 1v1s, then your analogy would apply. However, this is not the case.

@archsimkat said in Alternative to game quality indicator - Handicaps/Bonuses:

This is literally the plot to Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut...

I have not heard of this book before. Looking at the wikipedia entry... hahaha, yes, that is very interesting and the comparison is significant. For the most part, I agree with you that the system I've suggested in the OP is analogous to what Vonnegut describes in this book. Personally, I'm not against doing away with truskill and game quality indicator altogether. I am in the top tenth of players by skill. Therefore, if game quality indicator simply vanishes, I will be at an upper hand as I will tend to win the vast majority of games I play against other players when rating isn't even calculated.

The only reason I even made the OP is because it is axiomatically assumed that FAF games should be balanced. I merely suggested an inclusive balancing mechanism (as opposed to the exclusionary game quality indicator system FAF has now). I am certainly open to a libertarian "no balance calculation" approach, if that is your desire.

In your scenario the 500 is overrated as he is functionally a 0 or even a negative as far as trueskill is concerned (but it cant make these observations without reviewing games like this). If you were able to defeat 2 1000s (who we assume are certainly 1000s) independent of your teammate, then you would at minimum be a 2k player (and underrated at your present 1500).

@boom said in Alternative to game quality indicator - Handicaps/Bonuses:

1. 500r dude gets x1.5 mass
2. 500r dude continually feeds mass to 1500 teammate
3. ?????
4. profit

Also no idea why you think giving a low rated guy more resources and buildspeed would increase their effective skill, if anything it would turn them into a mass donation machine akin to cheating ai

Although your numbers are off, I understand your concern. It may be necessary for a handicap system that units and/or resources cannot be shared between team mates. This is not out of the question.

Your axiom is that a FAF game must always be balanced so that everyone has a 50% chance of winning rather than being meritocratic and rewarding improvement in skill. It doesn't matter how good I am, I will always have the exact same probability of succeeding.

You basically want to turn the game into literal rock-paper-scissors. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you have actually found the perfect values between ratings to reach your intended goal. This is not a replacement for trueskill, it is literally anathema to trueskill. This is a mod for the game, not a new rating system.

@ftxcommando said in Alternative to game quality indicator - Handicaps/Bonuses:

In your scenario the 500 is overrated as he is functionally a 0 or even a negative as far as trueskill is concerned (but it cant make these observations without reviewing games like this). If you were able to defeat 2 1000s (who we assume are certainly 1000s) independent of your teammate, then you would at minimum be a 2k player (and underrated at your present 1500).

I don't think your assumption here is correct. I had a game earlier today with me (1500) and a 600 player against two 1200s who double-teamed me. My 600 teammate did basically nothing while I was double teamed. I'm not certain, but I suspect I would have faired better if I simply spawned by myself. If the game started as the same 2v2 but I was in command of both ACUs (therefore more like a 2v2), I am fairly certain I would have won, or at least matched the other team (therefore been close to 1200x2 meaning 2400).

It's important to note that truskill was developed for Halo, a first person shooter with equal numbers of players on each team (say, a 2v2 or 4v4). Truskill is certainly useful for FAF, but FAF is not an FPS and there are significant differences. (On a 5x5 map, could a 2000 player with 1 ACU be expected to beat 20 players of 100 rating with 20 ACUs? I think not.)

@ftxcommando said in Alternative to game quality indicator - Handicaps/Bonuses:

Your axiom is that a FAF game must always be balanced so that everyone has a 50% chance of winning rather than being meritocratic and rewarding improvement in skill. It doesn't matter how good I am, I will always have the exact same probability of succeeding.

You basically want to turn the game into literal rock-paper-scissors. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you have actually found the perfect values between ratings to reach your intended goal. This is not a replacement for trueskill, it is literally anathema to trueskill. This is a mod for the game, not a new rating system.

I disagree. I would prefer doing away with game quality indicator altogether. I - a high skill player - will be at an advantage if no game qualities are ever calculated, and if player global ratings are hidden (so players cant estimate game quality themselves).

This "balance" axiom is YOUR doing. I would rather the balance simply disappear.

No, my assumption is correct. Your assumption that the result of a single game is evidence of the long term failure of trueskill is what is flawed.

Your analogy about trueskill is also flawed because it can only make a relativistic distribution based on the data it has. If you have a distribution based on 5x5 maps, then it is accurate for gauging that. If you suddenly add 20x20 maps, then you have added an error factor for the rating. Since tmm eliminates the ability to select for slots and maps (but it keeps the ability to select for teammates), it is about as close as you can get to rating the quality of that individual as a teammate.

So: since there is no situation where trueskill needs to account for data of 1 2k player playing 20 100 rating players on a 5x5 map, it is irrelevant to the situation. All that matters is 2v2 capability on the curated pool of the matchmaker.

So can a 2k player beat 20 100 rated players on the maps in tmm? If he can't, then he isn't a 2k according to the construction of this trueskill environment. If he can, then he is. Luckily this is not a possibility in matchmaker so it isn't a consideration for the system.

@ftxcommando said in Alternative to game quality indicator - Handicaps/Bonuses:

No, my assumption is correct. Your assumption that the result of a single game is evidence of the long term failure of trueskill is what is flawed.

Your analogy about trueskill is also flawed because it can only make a relativistic distribution based on the data it has. If you have a distribution based on 5x5 maps, then it is accurate for gauging that. If you suddenly add 20x20 maps, then you have added an error factor for the rating. Since tmm eliminates the ability to select for slots and maps (but it keeps the ability to select for teammates), it is about as close as you can get to rating the quality of that individual as a teammate.

So: since there is no situation where trueskill needs to account for data of 1 2k player playing 20 100 rating players on a 5x5 map, it is irrelevant to the situation. All that matters is 2v2 capability on the curated pool of the matchmaker.

I disagree. I think truskill is quite good. My OP only questions the validity of the game quality indicator. The game quality indicator is NOT truskill. We shouldn't pretend that it has the same reliability. Remember, my OP suggests handicap based on truskill. Nobody here - not me, not you - is trying to say truskill doesnt work.

I thought the game quality indicator was literally the fed likelihood of a game result based on given mu and sigma?

@ftxcommando said in Alternative to game quality indicator - Handicaps/Bonuses:

I thought the game quality indicator was literally the fed likelihood of a game result based on given mu and sigma?

In the context of equal teams in FPS games, yes. However, truskill was never intended for use in RTS games or in game with unequal numbers of players in each team.

The truth is, the game quality indicator is nearly arbitrary. It basically just averages the truskill of each player. IT doesnt account for anything else, despite there being a lot more to account for in RTS games.