46 coaches online • Server time: 14:39
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Americ...goto Post DOTP Season 4goto Post Skittles' Centu...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2017 - 05:21 Reply with quote Back to top

I've been thinking about an idea for a possible improvement to the Ranked Gamefinder. I'm curious as to what people think and whether anything similar has been suggested before:

It is often claimed that 'cherry picking' is something of a problem in [R] and may reduce the 'competitive' image of the division. Some coaches seem to take 'choosing your game' to an extreme - we've all seen those guys who sit on the gamefinder for hours, looking for a guaranteed win.

So, I was thinking, how about adding a timer system into the gamefinder, to try to combat this? Each player has a timer that starts at 10 minutes and counts down whenever there are valid matchups available and they're not making an offer. Once the timer runs out, all their Ranked teams are activated automatically and they then have two choices: they either accept the next matchup they are offered, or they have to wait an hour for their timer to replenish, before they can lfg again.

The idea isn't to try to reduce choice or force people to play a game they don't want to play, but I think such a timer would provide some gentle encouragement for players to take a game sooner, rather than waiting around for hours for that perfect cherry (which would be much more difficult). I think it might also help boost the number of games and improve [R]'s credibility as a competitive division.

Any thoughts?

_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2

"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" Razz
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2017 - 05:26 Reply with quote Back to top

Obviously, the 10 minutes for the timer and the 1 hour waiting period could be tweaked to whatever seems most appropriate.

One possible way to avoid it might be to log into the Gamefinder, see who is lfg-ing, and then quickly log off again, and do that repeatedly to try to 'conserve' the timer. However, I think that could be defeated by having the timer reduce by 1 minute every time a player logs off when there are valid games available.

If someone leaves the gamefinder, then their timer would fully replenish 1 hour after the last time they logged off.

_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2

"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" Razz
Wreckage



Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2017 - 05:47 Reply with quote Back to top

The cherrypicking debates are pretty much over. The days when somebody would start a new thread about it every few weeks are past. It seems more like an issue of LRB4 than the current ruleset and to suggested fixes now feels anachronistic.

That is not to say that you aren't right in your assessment that it can be still a bit of an issue (depending on what you hope to get out of the site).

As far as your solution idea goes:
I don't want trample on your idea and I wouldn't be vocally against it if a lot of people were to want this.
But my immediate response is to say this feels all a bit patronizing. People go to ranked so they can play games in the way they want. If you make restrictions of that sort, people will likely start to be a lot more upset about it than about the problem you are trying to fix.

There are also a number of ways to game that system which is:
1. To do offer matches to teams vastly inferior.
2. To remove the teams from gamefinder ahead of time.

Therefore I doubt you would actually manage to get to people who try to game the system, you'd rather generate an inconvenience for casual gamers.

The system itself also doesn't account for the differing situations a coach may find themselves in.
For instance if you are in the Australian time zone you may often find yourself alone with only one coach on the game finder.
But really generally there is a huge difference whether you have a high number or a low number of choices.
For another instance if you run a high level chaos team you will be more open to whatever than a low level pro elf or high level halfling team.
The question occurs in this context if this is simply means to combat elf teams. Which in turn would lead to referencing the possibility to use box instead.

Also there is the matter of which teams to activate in the first place.
If suddenly teams are meant to activate the coach didn't even want to play and put on the gamefinder in the first place, he could simply rather leave them in post match sequence.

So that's that anyways... The argument that it isn't meant to force coaches into matchups but rather to encourage them doesn't hold up either since if you force them into matchups it's all the same.
And if you don't, too.
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2017 - 06:14 Reply with quote Back to top

Thanks for your comments, Wreckage. Obviously, the proposed solution is based on the premise that cherry-picking is a problem, which some people might disagree with. I know this is a topic that has been discussed on and off for years, but I haven't seen any ideas like this suggested before. To address some of your other points:

Wreckage wrote:
There are also a number of ways to game that system which is:
1. To do offer matches to teams vastly inferior.


I think this would probably come down to what is defined as a 'valid matchup', for the purposes of the timer. A TV range could be set for what is considered 'valid' (let's say 150 or 200); however, it could still be possible to play/offer games outside of that range. So, an 'invalid'/unreasonable offer might not stop the timer ticking down (if there are other 'valid' matchups available).

Wreckage wrote:
2. To remove the teams from gamefinder ahead of time.


But the timer wouldn't replenish until an hour has passed. So, it wouldn't be possible to pull teams just before it runs out and then put them straight back in again, with a full timer.

Wreckage wrote:
The system itself also doesn't account for the differing situations a coach may find themselves in.
For instance if you are in the Australian time zone you may often find yourself alone with only one coach on the game finder.


If it were tied fully into the site rules, then a coach you have played within the last 10 games would not be a 'valid' matchup. If that one coach isn't someone you have played in the last 10, then why not play them?

Wreckage wrote:
Also there is the matter of which teams to activate in the first place.
If suddenly teams are meant to activate the coach didn't even want to play and put on the gamefinder in the first place, he could simply rather leave them in post match sequence.


That's true - you could leave teams in post-match to avoid them being auto-activated when the timer runs out. Although, coaches will always have at least 1 team ready to play (if they are lfg-ing). Yeah, maybe that part isn't entirely necessary - just auto-accept all offers with the teams they were lfg-ing with.

Wreckage wrote:
So that's that anyways... The argument that it isn't meant to force coaches into matchups but rather to encourage them doesn't hold up either since if you force them into matchups it's all the same.
And if you don't, too.


I think there is a difference between 'encouragement' and 'forcing'. With this idea, there is no point at which any coach would be forced into a matchup. The idea is just to limit the amount of time they can sit on the gamefinder and not take a 'valid' match.

_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2

"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" Razz
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2017 - 06:39 Reply with quote Back to top

Wreckage wrote:
Therefore I doubt you would actually manage to get to people who try to game the system, you'd rather generate an inconvenience for casual gamers.


I think you raise an interesting point here too: is [R] supposed to be competitive or casual? Perhaps it's competitively casual? Or, is it casually competitive? Wink

Just my 2 cents, but perhaps open play in [L] would be a better place for the 'casual' players?

_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2

"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" Razz
Wreckage



Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2017 - 07:14 Reply with quote Back to top

JellyBelly wrote:
I think you raise an interesting point here too: is [R] supposed to be competitive or casual? Perhaps it's competitively casual? Or, is it casually competitive? Wink


I think that Ranked was designed to be competitive but that it used for casual play by a majority of coaches. Nevertheless people still flock to ranked and not to league. The argument that league doesn't support a large enough number of coaches to play there casually is invalid because the only difference between the two systems is that ranked is competitive and league isn't.

Therefore it is clear that a number of people (including myself) values ranked for its competitiveness.
Furthermore since it is designed to be competitive it is generally correct to not try to cater to the special needs of people who use ranked as a platform for casual play.
And there sure have been a lot of suggestions around by those to cater to their needs, such as to remove ranking altogether.

Nevertheless Ranked is also the division that brings all the coaches together. If you want you could say it is the division that historically has proven to work. It continually spawns the largest number of participations, it hosts the most tournaments. This is due to the fact that you can find games there even if you use a concept team but at the same time are not prohibited from using a completely unbalanced high end min-maxed tv team.
Also if you look into the negative connotation used in regards to terms as 'min-maxed' and 'cherrypicking' you'll see that being too competitive also fluently shifts over from being competitive into violating the rules.
In a way one could say we need competitiveness to prevent competitiveness. Since if Ranked wasn't a competitive division, there was nothing to stop coaches to build ridiculously powerful teams.

Currently what sets Ranked apart from Blackbox is that you get to choose your matches (within some very soft limits) at the cost of potentially not getting any games. This creates a certain environment and within that environment you have to try and can play competitively. You are not really encouraged to max that competitiveness out but rather are supposed to find your own footing there (which may be very well very competitive or may be very well not - just as long you adhere to at least a basic principle of competitive play which must not be and should not be allowed to be violated or encouraged).
In Blackbox you may not choose your opponent but that means on the other hand that depending on two teams strengths you may end up in highly unfair matchups and yet again the question occurs if a coach is really worse just because his concept team can't beat a full on cpomb team.

The answer is as simple as that CR measures how successful a coach is, not how good of a coach he is.
And that is perfectly fine.
It is better than winpercentage. It is also more short lived.

In terms of ranked the cost of using a more competitive team to win is the time you need to invest on gamefinder to get a game. And likewise if you wish to cherrypick the same applies. The punishment for trying to cherrypick is that you have to spend enourmous times on gamefinder to get anywhere all the while people who use attractive teams have all the time in the world to get the games in to build stronger and more powerful teams.

That is the deal of ranked. For better or worse. We take our picks, choose our divisions. If you don't like, use Blackbox. Wink
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2017 - 13:08 Reply with quote Back to top

I think I agree with most of what you said there. I guess if you imagine a continuous scale, with 'casual' at one end and 'competitive' at the other, open play in [L] is fully at the casual end (where you can do whatever you want) and [B] is fully at the competitive end. I guess [R] fills a niche somewhere in the middle, where it is a kind of hybrid between casual and competitive - it has some aspects of both.

My GF timer idea would probably shift [R] more towards the competitive end of the scale than where it is now (adding restrictions and making casual play a bit more difficult). So, whether it is desirable or not depends on where we want [R] to be on that scale (or, more specifically, where Christer wants it to be).

I guess 'cherrypicking' is only really a problem for the coaches that would like [R] to be more purely competitive. But then, to your last point, those coaches might be more at home in [B] Smile

_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2

"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" Razz
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic