|
Re: **FIRST EMAIL**/Updated Alliance Pairing Algorithm
In reply to my "long-shot" question about scheduling matches comprised of more than two alliances, Tom wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Saxton
It doesn't handle that now, but there are only a few bits of code that would need to be adjusted to accommodate more alliances. Are duplicated opponents all the same for accounting purposes, or does it matter which opposing alliance they are on? How should alliance position balancing be generalized?
|
My answer is "Beats me" 
I don't have the answers to those questions either.
When/if the subject becomes worthy of serious investigation, maybe we can get some insight from other gaming domains or from game-theory research papers (or from economic theories?).
Blake
__________________
Blake Ross, For emailing me, in the verizon.net domain, I am blake
VRC Team Mentor, FTC volunteer, 5th Gear Developer, Husband, Father, Triangle Fraternity Alumnus (ky 76), U Ky BSEE, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, Kentucky Colonel
Words/phrases  I avoid: basis, mitigate, leveraging, transitioning, impact (instead of affect/effect), facilitate, programmatic, problematic, issue (instead of problem), latency (instead of delay), dependency (instead of prerequisite), connectivity, usage & utilize (instead of use), downed, functionality, functional, power on, descore, alumni (instead of alumnus/alumna), the enterprise, methodology, nomenclature, form factor (instead of size or shape), competency, modality, provided(with), provision(ing), irregardless/irrespective, signage, colorized, pulsating, ideate
|