Achieving fairness in team-based FPS games: A skill-based matchmaking solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Matchmaking is a critical part of online games which is often related to player satisfaction. To pursue a fair user experience, matchmaking mechanisms typically try to put players with similar skill levels into the same game. The traditional process relies heavily on the outcome of the game instead of the in-game performance of players. This paper proposes a new rating system to represent the skill level of both players and teams, along with a new definition to measure the degree of fairness of a matchmaking result. Three clustering methods (K-means, AGG and BKPP) are investigated to perform the matchmaking and the results are evaluated based on the newly-proposed definitions. The matchmaking results generated by the AGG method appear to reach the best degree of fairness. All source codes related to the project are available at https://github.com/WrtTZ/Achieving-Fairness-in-Team-Based-FPS-Games-A-Skill-Based-Matchmaking-Solution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".