Verminardo
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
|
 Posted:
Jan 12, 2014 - 10:26 |
 
|
From 16 games on there is no modifier for number of games, if I understand correctly.
I haven't been able to play too much since the change was implemented but invariably, if I did activate one of my "new" teams (with 0-4 games), they got scheduled over my other teams. |
|
|
The_Murker
Joined: Jan 30, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2014 - 11:11 |
|
@ Overhamsteren..
Racial Modifier + Random Factor + ?? = Suitability score you see is unique. The suitability score might be different next draw for the same teams, right? |
_________________
Join the wait-list. Watch the action. Leave the Empire. Come to Bretonnia! |
|
cdassak
Joined: Oct 23, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2014 - 07:21 |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2014 - 13:56 |
|
It isn't rigid. The less than 15 games protection means that those matches are less likely than pretty much any alternative match. But, if there is no alternative, they will happen. |
_________________
 Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
bigGuy
Joined: Sep 21, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2014 - 14:17 |
|
|
cthol
Joined: Nov 10, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2014 - 00:01 |
|
Is it just me or has the scheduler changed the order in which it displays games? It seems it now displays oldest at the top rather than newest... |
|
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2014 - 00:34 |
|
| cdassak wrote: | How rigid is the 15 game rule?
Yesterday I got this matchup
https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3526484
7 game Lizzies vs 150 game Underworld (I had the higher TV).
Just asking - not complaining, it was a great game vs a fun opponent! |
One could think that 1310k vs 1170k wouldn't count on being unfair against the overdog, or how?  |
|
|
Tarabaralla
Joined: Jul 24, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2014 - 12:33 |
|
After some time with this update I repute great I'd say it brings mostly good things.
Imho it drove B to some good change:
- There's still minmaxing, even after 30 games, but it's less frequent and has generally left the 1000-1200 TV zone. Cutting too much exposes those teams to extreme failure in case of being matched with some big team.
- Agility teams with 30+ games may have hard times while rebuilding but they gain a lot from inducements.
- Huge teams are more likely to get games
- Clawmbpo is still insanely popular, but this can't be fixed by a scheduler, sadly.
Just one kind of team wasn't getting any benefit in my perception: stunties.
Having a smaller TV range of opponents at the beginning is not a gain for them, and they still are forced to bloat their TV to get matches with rookie teams, sacrificing inducements. They're already far from being strong, but forcing them to choices not optimal really spoils the fun. What I see as a solution, and I dare to suggest it to the attention of Christer, is that no other team will benefit from a simple rule which may give stunties a more 'natural' starting roster.
Suggestion: Any team in the 0-1000 TV range may be scheduled vs any team in the 0-1000 TV range.
This would allow a starting halfling or goblin team to get his inducements, without relevantly helping any other race (teams with cheap linemen wouldn't get any benefit from fielding 11 linemen and a pair of rerolls instead of a full team), and giving a chance to rebuild to the occasional hard-beaten team fallen under 900 TV.
I guess getting a game won't be that easy, the scheduler will prefer closer matchup than those with a 300k difference, but it's a risk the coach knows while making his starting roster.
After growing a bit in TV probably things will be same as now, without much chanes of nice inducements, but at least that halfling/goblin team would have had a start as it deserved!
My 2 cents |
|
|
gamelsetlmatch
Joined: Mar 05, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2014 - 12:48 |
|
| Verminardo wrote: | From 16 games on there is no modifier for number of games, if I understand correctly.
I haven't been able to play too much since the change was implemented but invariably, if I did activate one of my "new" teams (with 0-4 games), they got scheduled over my other teams. |
Is the scheduler picking out the lower number of game, teams?
ag..two teams at 1500: one team with 125 games and one with 10
Will the 10 game team be picked first? |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2014 - 16:18 |
|
| Tarabaralla wrote: | After some time with this update I repute great I'd say it brings mostly good things.
Imho it drove B to some good change:
- There's still minmaxing, even after 30 games, but it's less frequent and has generally left the 1000-1200 TV zone. Cutting too much exposes those teams to extreme failure in case of being matched with some big team.
- Agility teams with 30+ games may have hard times while rebuilding but they gain a lot from inducements.
- Huge teams are more likely to get games
- Clawmbpo is still insanely popular, but this can't be fixed by a scheduler, sadly.
Just one kind of team wasn't getting any benefit in my perception: stunties.
Having a smaller TV range of opponents at the beginning is not a gain for them, and they still are forced to bloat their TV to get matches with rookie teams, sacrificing inducements. They're already far from being strong, but forcing them to choices not optimal really spoils the fun. What I see as a solution, and I dare to suggest it to the attention of Christer, is that no other team will benefit from a simple rule which may give stunties a more 'natural' starting roster.
Suggestion: Any team in the 0-1000 TV range may be scheduled vs any team in the 0-1000 TV range.
This would allow a starting halfling or goblin team to get his inducements, without relevantly helping any other race (teams with cheap linemen wouldn't get any benefit from fielding 11 linemen and a pair of rerolls instead of a full team), and giving a chance to rebuild to the occasional hard-beaten team fallen under 900 TV.
I guess getting a game won't be that easy, the scheduler will prefer closer matchup than those with a 300k difference, but it's a risk the coach knows while making his starting roster.
After growing a bit in TV probably things will be same as now, without much chanes of nice inducements, but at least that halfling/goblin team would have had a start as it deserved!
My 2 cents |
I've been considering this too.
I think that the scheduler should treat all teams with a TV of 100 or below as if they had a TV of 100. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 31, 2014 - 16:32 |
|
One other minor point of annoyance, though it's not because of any changes so far as I know...
When you have low activation numbers, even if there are legal matchups they will not get drawn because of a minimum number of games which must be made in order for any games to get made.
Without discussing the concern that lead to this decision (so far as it was explained to me, perhaps I am mistaken about it), I would contend that this should be changed so that at low activation times any legal game(s) should be drawn irrespective of this limit (I believe it is 2).
Punishing those who are playing within the spirit of B to counter the actions of what must be an utter minority (as I would guess most people don't even know what I'm talking about) is counter productive to the stated goal of B. In any case the solution to the problem is review and enforcement in my opinion. For some things the site can police itself, as it does for various other issues. |
|
|
Tarabaralla
Joined: Jul 24, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 07, 2014 - 09:21 |
|
| Frankenstein wrote: | | Tarabaralla wrote: | After some time with this update I repute great I'd say it brings mostly good things.
Imho it drove B to some good change:
- There's still minmaxing, even after 30 games, but it's less frequent and has generally left the 1000-1200 TV zone. Cutting too much exposes those teams to extreme failure in case of being matched with some big team.
- Agility teams with 30+ games may have hard times while rebuilding but they gain a lot from inducements.
- Huge teams are more likely to get games
- Clawmbpo is still insanely popular, but this can't be fixed by a scheduler, sadly.
Just one kind of team wasn't getting any benefit in my perception: stunties.
Having a smaller TV range of opponents at the beginning is not a gain for them, and they still are forced to bloat their TV to get matches with rookie teams, sacrificing inducements. They're already far from being strong, but forcing them to choices not optimal really spoils the fun. What I see as a solution, and I dare to suggest it to the attention of Christer, is that no other team will benefit from a simple rule which may give stunties a more 'natural' starting roster.
Suggestion: Any team in the 0-1000 TV range may be scheduled vs any team in the 0-1000 TV range.
This would allow a starting halfling or goblin team to get his inducements, without relevantly helping any other race (teams with cheap linemen wouldn't get any benefit from fielding 11 linemen and a pair of rerolls instead of a full team), and giving a chance to rebuild to the occasional hard-beaten team fallen under 900 TV.
I guess getting a game won't be that easy, the scheduler will prefer closer matchup than those with a 300k difference, but it's a risk the coach knows while making his starting roster.
After growing a bit in TV probably things will be same as now, without much chanes of nice inducements, but at least that halfling/goblin team would have had a start as it deserved!
My 2 cents |
I've been considering this too.
I think that the scheduler should treat all teams with a TV of 100 or below as if they had a TV of 100. |
This is maybe even simpler to implement, and doesn't give bad odds to low TV team. Plus, if statistics concerning win % (those affecting the scheduler) consider the 0-1000 TV range as a single one, it makes perfectly sense to follow your idea.
Hope to see flings playing properly even in B  |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 07, 2014 - 09:32 |
|
| licker wrote: | One other minor point of annoyance, though it's not because of any changes so far as I know...
When you have low activation numbers, even if there are legal matchups they will not get drawn because of a minimum number of games which must be made in order for any games to get made. |
i've seen this happen quite often, 1-2-3 coaches activate and no matches are drawn. reschedule 15 mins later, same thing.
if it continues, it will kill box, as people will just stop bothering |
|
|
bigGuy
Joined: Sep 21, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 07, 2014 - 10:03 |
|
| Sp00keh wrote: | | licker wrote: | One other minor point of annoyance, though it's not because of any changes so far as I know...
When you have low activation numbers, even if there are legal matchups they will not get drawn because of a minimum number of games which must be made in order for any games to get made. |
i've seen this happen quite often, 1-2-3 coaches activate and no matches are drawn. reschedule 15 mins later, same thing.
if it continues, it will kill box, as people will just stop bothering |
It never draw for 1-2-3 coaches |
|
|
Tarabaralla
Joined: Jul 24, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 07, 2014 - 11:32 |
|
| bigGuy wrote: | | Sp00keh wrote: | | licker wrote: | One other minor point of annoyance, though it's not because of any changes so far as I know...
When you have low activation numbers, even if there are legal matchups they will not get drawn because of a minimum number of games which must be made in order for any games to get made. |
i've seen this happen quite often, 1-2-3 coaches activate and no matches are drawn. reschedule 15 mins later, same thing.
if it continues, it will kill box, as people will just stop bothering |
It never draw for 1-2-3 coaches |
This is made to avoid "arranged" draws. It won't change, probably, Christer (or an admin, I fail to remember now) already explained once it is part of the B nature to be random, and this needs at least 4 coaches drawn per round.: otherwise if I know I'm the only one activated together with someone else, we could arrange a matchup.
Simply, B works with 4+ coaches. |
|
|
|
|
| |
RNG speculations
Search
