Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
 Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 18:18 |
 
|
Score of the matchup posted by the OP:
[@BowlBot] - Ignaz vs funnyfingers (Chaos Dwarf 108/106 vs 110/91 Goblin) @648 |
|
|
maysrill
Joined: Dec 29, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 18:25 |
|
| Christer wrote: | | maysrill wrote: | | Christer, is it possible to maybe favor "no match" over "awful matchup"? (...) The [B] motto ought to be something along the lines of "fair matches, no haggling", rather than "suck it up, we got you a game, didn't we?" |
Please define "fair matches" for me. |
I think a good start would be no more than 10% TS difference (10TS isn't the same at TR200+ as it is for <125) and no more than 1 handicap either way. Add the racial factors in before calculating the TS difference. Fiddle a bit with the numbers, but that's the concept I'd look to.
Maybe this is too strongly restricted, but that goes back to my original contention that my order of preference is to play a fair match, not play, or play an uneven match. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 18:28 |
|
| maysrill wrote: | | no more than 1 handicap either way. |
My team, at one point was 207/125 ... waiting for a match up with only 1 handicap could take years.
Avoiding handicaps is already a factor in the calculation, but beyond that would be a big step backwards, in my opinion. |
|
|
Cloggy
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 18:33 |
|
With those dice I would have lost to no-tree halflings... |
_________________
Proud owner of three completed Ranked grids, sadly lacking in having a life. |
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 19:26 |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 19:28 |
|
Yes.. no-tree flings win vs no-RR-vamps more often than not... |
|
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 20:14 |
|
| funnyfingers wrote: | | Cloggy wrote: |
With those dice I would have lost to no-tree halflings... |
Hey my no tree halfings are 11/3/9! |
My no-tree halflings are 2/3/2...but hey they only played dwarfs.  |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 20:58 |
|
As a lot of the kerfuffle is about "handicapped" games:
Handicaps seem to me a separate argument. Personally, while being something interesting in a game, I think they don't belong in the Blackbox, at least not in their current form. Blackbox bases "fair" games on an equal TS; handicaps are to balance out "unfair" games, based on TR. If we are going to use TS, then handicaps should be based on that, or not at all. The current system is just illogical.
But if we are going to assume that handicaps are useful and fair in the box, you can't use that as an excuse for saying games are unfairly scheduled, else you risk muddling two different points.
From Christer's explanation, I'd have thought there ought to be a more elegant measure than "total sum" of suitabilities. Anyone mathematically inclined like to comment? 
Edit: I'm not that mathematically inclined, but I have been thinking...
Some weighted system towards the lower matches, would that be better?
i.e. if you had n matches, instead of suitability sum you could have sum of:
suitability * i / sum(1,...,n)
where i is the ordered suitability (best match = 1, worst = n).
too give you a weighted average of suitabilities.
Or for a weighted absolute value equivalent to the total sum (which I assume is so that the scheduler will schedule three @700 matches rather than two @900 matches), just times by n.
In other words:
n * sum(suitability *i) / sum(0,...,n)
I'm sure that's very clunky, but something along those lines could cajoule the scheduler into picking 3 matches @800 over 2 matches @900 and one @600, couldn't it? |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 22:17 |
|
| maysrill wrote: | Christer, is it possible to maybe favor "no match" over "awful matchup"? I know I'm fairly new to playing [B], but I've already been on both sides of matches that I think would have been better off not being played.
Rookie dwarfs and rookie amazons? If a first-time player offered me this match I'd take the time to give him a little talking to about what zons should and shouldn't be trying to play. I was embarrassed to play this matchup and my opponent needed a new team afterward. I'd have been ok with sitting on the sidelines if this was all the scheduler could manage.
Maybe playing too much [R] has narrowed my view of what an even match is, but I think [B] might be too liberal. The [B] motto ought to be something along the lines of "fair matches, no haggling", rather than "suck it up, we got you a game, didn't we?" |
Hey I do consider that this matchup (rookie dorfs vs rookie zons) is fair enough.
If you start on this road then my rookie chaos shouldn't play rookie zons, my elves would take too much cas against a claw+RSC loaded team... and so on |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 22:33 |
|
I think a matchup like the one I got in the overall scheme of things is fair. Maybe adding in a Khamra system would be nice. I would think it should be on a per team basis though. |
|
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 22:37 |
|
Kharma being ... 10 matches at the short end of the stick should get you a better chance on the other end of it. Nothing big. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 24, 2009 - 23:16 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | | Blackbox bases "fair" games on an equal TS; handicaps are to balance out "unfair" games, based on TR. If we are going to use TS, then handicaps should be based on that, or not at all. The current system is just illogical. |
i agree |
|
|
BroadAsImLong
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 24, 2009 - 23:19 |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 24, 2009 - 23:20 |
|
| treborius wrote: | | Chingis wrote: | | Blackbox bases "fair" games on an equal TS; handicaps are to balance out "unfair" games, based on TR. If we are going to use TS, then handicaps should be based on that, or not at all. The current system is just illogical. |
i agree |
I don't: I would certainly not be happy to play that TS140 team with my TS 100 team just because 5 handicaps brings the game into the 15 TS range. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 24, 2009 - 23:29 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | | treborius wrote: | | Chingis wrote: | | Blackbox bases "fair" games on an equal TS; handicaps are to balance out "unfair" games, based on TR. If we are going to use TS, then handicaps should be based on that, or not at all. The current system is just illogical. |
i agree |
I don't: I would certainly not be happy to play that TS140 team with my TS 100 team just because 5 handicaps brings the game into the 15 TS range. |
ok, i guess i wasn't being too clear (and might have misinterpreted Chingis' post):
i'm for HCs based on TS only after match-ups have been created (same algorithm as now), thus you'd still have a mismatch of 15TS max.
if i now get scheduled -15TS vs. a team i'd be more happy to play it with 3 HCs (1HC / 5TS) in my favor than with 0
regardless of TR. |
|
|
|
|
DIBBL Awards
Search
