| Poll |
| Which method do you prefer |
| Method 1:- As you were |
|
21% |
[ 32 ] |
| Method 2:- All-Comers Mayhem |
|
10% |
[ 15 ] |
| Method 3:- Best fit |
|
51% |
[ 75 ] |
| Other Method |
|
3% |
[ 5 ] |
| Cake is better than pie |
|
3% |
[ 5 ] |
| I really don't care for whatever reason, but i still like to vote for things |
|
10% |
[ 15 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 147 |
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 17:16 |
 
|
I am inclined to agree about the sweet spot thing, but it does address the issue with those who think it could be a problem
Like I said 150 minimum difference isn't a problem and with a lot of coaches in play a random game against someone UP TO 150 difference will a lot of the time only offer a single babe to either side anyway.
The situations you described with inducements would only happen in matches between two coaches who both had to opt into that possible situation as well. I'm sure you have played "fair" games that haven't been close as well, anything can happen with the dice.
I don't follow what you mean by the system being "not sound enough to cope with thousands of games at all times". What difference would that make?
The only issue that I can see like you said is for coaches left with a game against someone they don't like. Otherwise I can't really see any objections to this system to be the main division, though I've been saying this for years and is part of the reason I stopped playing here. For those who that is a concern they can play in private leagues? Not sure about being able to veto certain coaches, that might get abused by those who just elect not to play people "better" than them? |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 17:31 |
|
| Grumbledook wrote: |
The situations you described with inducements would only happen in matches between two coaches who both had to opt into that possible situation as well. I'm sure you have played "fair" games that haven't been close as well, anything can happen with the dice. |
Well yar, naturally, I'd just like it in an infinite game division to give it every chance before the cuboids got involved!  Never a fortnight goes by where I don’t play a game where dice have been a bigger factor than coaching, but at least in open play, the games I end up playing are fairish. If I want it to be zero inducements fair, I should be allowed? I agree, the wide silly matchups are entered into by all sides, no issues there. 150, afterall, is a 2+ the ball is down inducement off the bat. That’s pretty big at high TV where the gap is less than the rating suggests, no?
| Quote: | | I don't follow what you mean by the system being "not sound enough to cope with thousands of games at all times". What difference would that make? |
Not a difference in terms of volumes of games all occurring at the same time, but a difference in a system that can produce thousands. In your local league (or mine, I’m not referring to the ECBBL), it’s a closed knit bunch of teams that play a relative handful of games. In this volume with a wide TV range, you’re going to have constant (you can play what, 5 games a day if you’re hardcore?) hammering of inducements and weird and wonderful matchups. I don’t think inducements is a sound enough system to provide the underdog with a 30% win rate across all of the numerous situations FUMBBL will throw up. Because there wasn’t a huge online system in which to test inducements thoroughly, they aren’t as perfect as they could have been. In my pre-emptive view, anyway. If I can find some games in my tiny experience I think inducements have been duff in, Lord knows where we'll end up overall.
| Quote: | | The only issue that I can see like you said is for coaches left with a game against someone they don't like. Otherwise I can't really see any objections to this system to be the main division, though I've been saying this for years and is part of the reason I stopped playing here. For those who that is a concern they can play in private leagues? Not sure about being able to veto certain coaches, that might get abused by those who just elect not to play people "better" than them? |
Well - here is the rub of much forum debate, banter and silly pointless argument. Before the box was implemented, I would have totally agreed with you. When I actually tried it, I found that selecting the game I wanted to play to be vital to the fun of the experience. Whether it be a coach I didn’t like, a 1FF team with a Star that I wouldn’t enjoy, 10 Chaos teams in a row, the scheduler giving me a game I thought was unfair on either grounds of too wide TS or a flaw in the TS system (I.e. I can do a better job with my human brain), whatever the reason (and I’m not saying all of that happened), I found that engaging in a conversation about the game I was about to play and us both agreeing up front it was fair and the teams were ‘real’ and not some silly interweb messup was important to my free time being spent enjoyably. Some love it, but I firmly believe you can’t go labelling people cowards (not you specifically) because they don’t. If you have more fun the other way, then fine.
Should the box in the new client follow your idea, I’d give it another go. At least some of the issues would be addressed. |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 17:46 |
|
Perhaps working the minimum at 40TV would be fine then (easier to get a game than using 0) and no inducements would be involed (unless coaches spend treasury on it). Then letting coaches enter a higher maximum if they wish and everyone is a winner.
If there is a lot of "sweet spot" abuse and it is deemed a problem then a higher minimum could be adjusted.
You are almost certainly right about the inducements not making every game "fair", I don't think that was the sole overall aim though. Putting the choice in the hands of the coach though is clearly better than what has been done up till now.
Of course unless Christer actually sees this is all just a waste of time anyway  |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 17:50 |
|
Oh, he has eyes everywhere...  |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 18:16 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: |
Perhaps. I'm not sure the 'sweet spot' issue is super massive. |
Judging from my Cyanide experience, I think it's going to be a significant issue. I don't really know why things would be different here.
Mind you, I don't think a minimum max TV cap is going to be enough to deter this if there are enough opponents available and if the scheduler prioritizes matches where the teams are close in TV. Another issue entirely is whether keeping your team at a certain TV level should be discouraged in the first place. |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 18:20 |
|
If you really think that is going to be an issue how would a minimum TV difference not solve it? The cyanide sweet spot issue is down to the lack of inducements and the fact you are matched up to a team close to your own TV right?
So if you are facing teams that are better than you, or ones that are worse and have inducements, then the sweet spot isn't really going to exist as each game is going to be far more different than what would exist in the cyanide MM system?
If you explain how and where a problem would exist then we can try and come up with ideas that eliminate or minimise the issue.
I don't think that a coach who keeps their team at the same TV should be penalised though, how do you even police that anyway. |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 18:32 |
|
| Grumbledook wrote: | | If you really think that is going to be an issue how would a minimum TV difference not solve it? The cyanide sweet spot issue is down to the lack of inducements and the fact you are matched up to a team close to your own TV right? |
Oh, you mean an actual minimum TV difference? I thought you meant that there should be a minimum level for the maximum TV difference. To be honest, I don't like this idea at all, as it would completely eliminate the most even games and would make finding games harder. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 18:46 |
|
| RandomOracle wrote: | | Purplegoo wrote: |
Perhaps. I'm not sure the 'sweet spot' issue is super massive. |
Judging from my Cyanide experience, I think it's going to be a significant issue. I don't really know why things would be different here. |
Is Cyanide not a waste of space though? We here can figure out some way of defeating it if it were to become an issue. For instance, the first four games stopped being inputted to CR when people exploited it - low TR is no longer the super-joke it used to be. I'm confident we can implement something similar, but from a hippy point of view, can we not just start assuming no one will be an idiot? |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 18:50 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: |
Is Cyanide not a waste of space though? We here can figure out some way of defeating it if it were to become an issue. For instance, the first four games stopped being inputted to CR when people exploited it - low TR is no longer the super-joke it used to be. I'm confident we can implement something similar, but from a hippy point of view, can we not just start assuming no one will be an idiot? |
Why is keeping your team at a certain TV level being an idiot?
Also, what makes you think that things would be different here compared to Cyanide in regards to this issue? |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 18:59 |
|
Well - I'll rephrase 'idiot' for 'lame-o trying to break the system to your own advantage and not progressing teams as intended', which is what we're on about, yes? If it were an OK thing to do, there's no conversation. TV management is one thing, what we're discussing here is another, yes?
And as for the difference; my impression is that FUMBBL is a better adminned, better and more secure online system, and has a more active and integrated community that will behave less like faceless interweb kiddies who disco in T16 if life isn't suiting them, before creating a new account the next day? |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 19:19 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | | Well - I'll rephrase 'idiot' for 'lame-o trying to break the system to your own advantage and not progressing teams as intended', which is what we're on about, yes? If it were an OK thing to do, there's no conversation. TV management is one thing, what we're discussing here is another, yes? |
What is "progressing teams as intended"? Should all teams aim for the TV 2500+ level? Should you take all stat increases and buy new players or rerolls when you have the cash so that your TV will increase as fast as possible? Are you disallowed from firing healthy players? If you like playing low-TV games, are you forced to scrap your team and make a new one when it starts growing?
| Purplegoo wrote: |
And as for the difference; my impression is that FUMBBL is a better adminned, better and more secure online system, and has a more active and integrated community that will behave less like faceless interweb kiddies who disco in T16 if life isn't suiting them, before creating a new account the next day? |
I agree on all points, but I don't think they have anything to do with the issue at hand. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 19:32 |
|
I think I'm confused, or we're confused, or both.
I've read it again - and I'm still not sure what we disagree on!
A coach being careful about skill picks and looking after his TV, fine. A coach liking low TV and as such sacking a few players and getting rookies in, OK. A coach playing for the TV 'sweet spot' and continually sacking players to take advantage of some unseen facet of a scheduler in which we've given some TV max / min range, not OK and something we should look at. Unless I’ve misunderstood the thrust of Silly’s point.
Now I agree the line is pretty hazy, when does wanting to play low TV change to being a bugger with the system? But isn’t that the point of talking about it? |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 19:48 |
|
| RandomOracle wrote: | | Oh, you mean an actual minimum TV difference? I thought you meant that there should be a minimum level for the maximum TV difference. To be honest, I don't like this idea at all, as it would completely eliminate the most even games and would make finding games harder. |
I think you have misunderstood. It would be a minimum level that teams can set their Max TV difference in a game to. Just to be clear:
The minimum TV difference would be so that coaches can't just play games with no inducements (150 difference is nothing 15TR in LRB4 terms). It doesn't mean that the randomiser will force every game to be at this difference minimum. You will still get some games with zero TV difference as it is random.
The minimum would just prevent coaches from getting to a sweet spot and then only playing teams at that exact same TV which you suggest will be a problem. On average (with a hypothetical 150 difference) one team or the other will only be able to afford one bloodwieser babe. At the worst they will get 150k of inducements.
It shouldn't make finding games harder at all as like I said the randomiser can assign any two teams against each other (the minimum is there to stop the coach from just playing the same TV every game).
Looking at the last page of matches on your own account on here and using TS your average on that page is 6.5 difference. TV isn't that different from TS so that would be 65 difference letting one team or the other getting a babe (assuming no treasury spending). The differences ranged from 1 up to 29.
So coach A would leave the max set at the minimum of 150 and get a random match up of a team between 0 and 150 TV difference.
Coach B sets the max TV difference to 400 TV difference and gets a game between 0 and 400.
Coach C says he he will take on anyone at any TV so sets his difference to 0 and can will be up against anyone.
This system only prevents teams from playing games that have a TV difference bigger than they wish to play. If there is an opponent who they can play at the same TV then they will get matched up against them, they just won't be able to only play against them, they will have to play some games where there is a reasonable difference. That difference is what the minimum TV should be which would help the "sweet spot" issue.
Make sense? |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 19:49 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | A coach playing for the TV 'sweet spot' and continually sacking players to take advantage of some unseen facet of a scheduler in which we've given some TV max / min range, not OK and something we should look at. Unless I’ve misunderstood the thrust of Silly’s point.
|
I guess I could have misunderstood things. I meant 'sweet spot' more in terms of the TV range at which a given race tends to perform the best. This would mean not building your norse team to a very high level (in LRB 4 at least). On the other hand, I do agree that there probably shouldn't be a sweet spot for the TV limit in the scheduler, so you could, for example, always avoid a wizard when playing with orcs. In general, I wouldn't mind a somewhat random TV range for opponents, which would make 'sweet spots' less valuable. |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 20:01 |
|
| Grumbledook wrote: |
I think you have misunderstood. It would be a minimum level that teams can set their Max TV difference in a game to. |
OK, your suggestion was what I originally thought it was then.
| Grumbledook wrote: |
This system only prevents teams from playing games that have a TV difference bigger than they wish to play. If there is an opponent who they can play at the same TV then they will get matched up against them, they just won't be able to only play against them, they will have to play some games where there is a reasonable difference. That difference is what the minimum TV should be which would help the "sweet spot" issue. |
The thing is, if [B] were to become the main division at FUMBBL and if FUMBBL's popularity were to take off due to the new client, we could end up with the situation where there's almost always an opponent available at a similar TV. Thus, you might only rarely get matchups where the TV difference is significant. In this case, the minimum max TV difference wouldn't have much of an impact and it would be quite reasonable to park your team at a sweet spot, because you would know that you'd have to play at a disadvantage only rarely. In this case, the scheduler probably should try to randomize the matchups to some extent, if we really wanted to give people more uneven games.
I noticed in Cyanide's MM that you could be quite confident in getting an even game at lower TV levels, but at TV 2200+ or so (where there were much fewer teams), all bets were off and you could get a game with a TV difference of 430 in either direction. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
