treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
 Posted:
Dec 17, 2009 - 00:42 |
 
|
| Frankenstein wrote: | Well, they say that my Guard/MB longbeard is, TS-wise, as strong as a pro elf catcher without any skills and weaker than one with just Dodge. If that doesn't turn dwarves into a fun-to-play roster for you, I don't know what does!  |
i think it's hard to measure TS of single players and add all their TS to get a total-TS of a whole team.
imagine your pro elf catcher on a khemri team - he would be worth his ma+ag in gold and TS 
of course, when having 4 pro elf catchers (with dodge as in our match yesterday vs. my CD) in a team of other elf, that's like giving candy to the starving
(i.e. not very beneficial in relation to the cost and what you could have otherwise invested your TS into)
that's just another reason why i think "objective"-player-TS can only be one component for measuring the "true" strength of a team - another component would be the strength of the roster, which might (approximately) be measured by popularity.
i believe that (in terms of measure-quality) of a team's strength: TR << TS < TS "+" popularity of roster.
i don't know if that makes sense to you, but that's what i think. |
|
|
Timlagor
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 17, 2009 - 13:59 |
|
Abolish [R] and everything will be better |
_________________
Time for a new .sig |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 17, 2009 - 20:12 |
|
| Timlagor wrote: | | Abolish [R] and everything will be better |
nah, where would the noobs go, then? |
|
|
lawman
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2009 - 14:27 |
|
I do think Orcs are in general TS light. They are by far the highest represented CR when you review coach Ranking.
I wouldn't mind seeing Orc rookie BOB's and Blitzers rated higher.
But other than that...no can't say anything else except damn Khermi, but what can you do. |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2009 - 15:37 |
|
| treborius wrote: | | Frankenstein wrote: | | Well, they say that my Guard/MB longbeard is, TS-wise, as strong as a pro elf catcher without any skills and weaker than one with just Dodge. If that doesn't turn dwarves into a fun-to-play roster for you, I don't know what does! |
i think it's hard to measure TS of single players and add all their TS to get a total-TS of a whole team.
imagine your pro elf catcher on a khemri team - he would be worth his ma+ag in gold and TS
of course, when having 4 pro elf catchers (with dodge as in our match yesterday vs. my CD) in a team of other elf, that's like giving candy to the starving
(i.e. not very beneficial in relation to the cost and what you could have otherwise invested your TS into)
that's just another reason why i think "objective"-player-TS can only be one component for measuring the "true" strength of a team - another component would be the strength of the roster, which might (approximately) be measured by popularity.
i believe that (in terms of measure-quality) of a team's strength: TR << TS < TS "+" popularity of roster.
i don't know if that makes sense to you, but that's what i think. |
Your equation makes sense.
On second thought, it is not really that important how the TS-formula works and games are based on it, as long as you don't bother too much about your rating, that is, since tournament entries are based on TR rather than TS.
The TS-formula has major flaws nevertheless which will hopefully be overcome by TV one day. |
|
|
runreallyfast
Joined: Sep 08, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2009 - 16:22 |
|
I think TV is not all that accurate either.
TS isn't bad, but I think the formula significantly undervalues AV for players with multiple skills. Neither one really copes well with players who have bad skills, either. |
|
|
Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2009 - 23:45 |
|
If you wish to pick your opponents race, play in R. You play in B because you're ready to accept anything.
My opinion if something could be done to increase diversity, it can't be through any in game penalties, ts boosts etc.
Awards, titles and prizes for playing the less represented races could do it. Some Blackbox awards and events could also increase B games nicely.
Scroll of Renaming would be cool prize as it sure would be wanted, but also has almost no ingame effect. |
|
|
screech
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2009 - 23:50 |
|
TS for necros is completly borked. They are no way as good as the ts says they should be. |
_________________
Everybody believes in something, and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, use that something to support their own existence.
Frank Zappa |
|
thedevil
Joined: Jul 31, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2009 - 03:07 |
|
| treborius wrote: | I've had an idea a while ago: if racial diversity in B is really desired, why not give underrepresented races a
slight advantage (TS-wise) in the match-ups in a self-organizing way along the lines of the following model:
.....
.....
EDIT: 'hope anybody is willing to read all that and would love to hear what others think about it |
This guy is onto something. Definatley would support this. If there was a way to factor in a coaches box rating then it would be a very good system, possibly negating any penalty for any noobs who need these kind of teams.
Personally I never play orcs or dwarfs, imo they are boring and like an easy/cheesy team. Whenever I pick up a new game I set it to the most difficult setting, BB is basically the same for me I get more out of winning with a handicap. Each to thier own etc. But because there is such a discrepancy in the numbers say orc vs vamps something needs to happen to make the box more interesting.
I dont mind playing vs orcs or dwarfs... but what I mind is when I play a skilled coach who out of all the cool races they could have picked it is the same 2 races that have 9 AV. What is worse than that is playing skilled coaches with these teams over and over. So yes some teams are just better, but if we can put a number on it to even up the under-representing teams then I think black box will get even better and possibly convert more ppl from ranked.
just my 2cs |
|
|
JackDaniels
Joined: May 03, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2009 - 05:06 |
|
i am drunk bt my 2 cents don´t know if it makes sense to the topic.
1.if you play elves and give everyone dodge as first skill its your own fault if you have to play vs dwarf and are totally screwed.
2.if you think a skilled bashing player has the better chances vs a skilled agility player (without wizard) i agree with you (although i.e. flix will disagree but everyboday has his own oppinion). so play basher races and prove that you are skilled. and on bash vs bash you can show real skill too. and i think racial advantage is already invovled in the rating formular |
|
|
Were_M_Eye
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2009 - 08:49 |
|
| thedevil wrote: | | If there was a way to factor in a coaches box rating then it would be a very good system, possibly negating any penalty for any noobs who need these kind of teams. |
It was factored in in the beginning, but it was horrible. If you had a couple of good games you all of the sudden faced a team with twice as many skills as your own team. If they factored in that again i would leave the box. |
|
|
Timlagor
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2009 - 10:49 |
|
Surely Christer could involve it without making it so overwhelming... but I don't think it would be helpful for [B] myself. |
_________________
Time for a new .sig |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2009 - 10:55 |
|
| JackDaniels wrote: | i am drunk bt my 2 cents don´t know if it makes sense to the topic.
1.if you play elves and give everyone dodge as first skill its your own fault if you have to play vs dwarf and are totally screwed.
2.if you think a skilled bashing player has the better chances vs a skilled agility player (without wizard) i agree with you (although i.e. flix will disagree but everyboday has his own oppinion). so play basher races and prove that you are skilled. and on bash vs bash you can show real skill too. and i think racial advantage is already invovled in the rating formular |
racial advantage is factored into determining the BWR, but not in actually matching the teams with one another.
so when you play an underdog race like nurgle or halflings you gain more (BWR-wise) by winning with that team, but you're still scheduled vs. non-underdog races the same way as Orcs would have gotten matched (based on the ideal of equal TS).
my idea was just to give underrepresented teams a slight TS-advantage in match-ups as long as they are underrepresented (based on a measure for the "amount of underrepresentation") and still calculate BWR-changes the way it's calculated now (the current BWR-formula also takes into account the TS of teams, i.e. gives less BWR-gain for a won game where the match-up favored your team in terms of TS - so no need to change anything, here).
my idea is really not about coach-skills, measuring skills in terms of BWR or changing the way TS is measured, but just to give underrepresented teams (slight) advantages in match-ups to make them more attractive to coaches. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2009 - 11:01 |
|
| Were_M_Eye wrote: | | thedevil wrote: | | If there was a way to factor in a coaches box rating then it would be a very good system, possibly negating any penalty for any noobs who need these kind of teams. |
It was factored in in the beginning, but it was horrible. If you had a couple of good games you all of the sudden faced a team with twice as many skills as your own team. If they factored in that again i would leave the box. |
| Timlagor wrote: | | Surely Christer could involve it without making it so overwhelming... but I don't think it would be helpful for [B] myself. |
good coaches will object and they have the right to do so - i think systematically giving advantages based on something that's linked to a coach (his ability or playstyle or something else) will naturally always have too many people objecting.
alternatively when favoring teams that are underrepresented, everyone (goood and bad coaches) fearing a disadvantage has the option of playing those teams and start gaining from that advantage (until a lot of coaches do so and it's no longer underrepresented), but then they also have the option to stop playing those rosters, again.
i think an equilibrium should be reached easily with that mechanism. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2009 - 11:34 |
|
| treborius wrote: | | Were_M_Eye wrote: | | thedevil wrote: | | If there was a way to factor in a coaches box rating then it would be a very good system, possibly negating any penalty for any noobs who need these kind of teams. |
It was factored in in the beginning, but it was horrible. If you had a couple of good games you all of the sudden faced a team with twice as many skills as your own team. If they factored in that again i would leave the box. |
| Timlagor wrote: | | Surely Christer could involve it without making it so overwhelming... but I don't think it would be helpful for [B] myself. |
good coaches will object and they have the right to do so - i think systematically giving advantages based on something that's linked to a coach (his ability or playstyle or something else) will naturally always have too many people objecting.
|
I objected the system back then because there was no measurer of success. BWR was held secret and the matches were just getting harder for reasons you could guess at best.
I wouldn't object a system that changes the difficulty of matchups when and as long you can see how good you are. Anyhow I agree that the measures were way too drastic then. A TS advantage like that should be very small. In fact small changes can make a very high difference. 1-2 TS often could already do the trick.....
I've heard three ideas now:
Manipulate fair matchups based on :
1. Bashyness of race (maybe team)
2. Success of the coach (maybe team)
3. Rarity of race
The third idea seems to be the most idealistic to me. Simply because we gotta ask the question, what do we really want?
Do we want less bashy teams, balanced matchups for worse and better coaches or racial diversity?
I think we want the last and if we want something else it is connected to the third problem. Hidden aspects like survivability that don't get represented in winning stats but give teams like orcs just that edge that makes it attractive to play them.
Would this produces unfair, advantagous matchups for certain strategies?
No, it wouldn't. The representation of a race is in the end an indication for the races abilities through choice of human mind. It would be unfair if TS would be an objective measuring system, but it is not. A second subjective angle could help to objectivate it.
But I'd like to adress another issue that came up in my mind a while ago:
The races on the list of racial diversity on the blackbox page do not necessarily represent the races that are actually played. Everyone can make an Orc team and then use his skaven. Or you could make a skaven team and never use it.
A better approach would be to just count the played games and what races played them rather then just counting the teams. |
|
|
|
|
DIBBL Awards
Search
