87 coaches online • Server time: 22:21
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post FUMBBL cup XVII: Pre...goto Post Why is Ranked the &q...goto Post Scaling Client on hi...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 06:49 Reply with quote Back to top

Nah, running up the score is actually smart play under many conditions. But leaving an avenue of attack on the ball, or not fouling a key player who could wreak havoc with the right vision and dice. Anything that you wouldn't do against a knowledgeable opponent. 'Cuz really I'm bringing the argument that you always owe every opponent your A game, in any format where you're supposed to play to win.

_________________
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and Tackle Zones; reddened blades of grass.
thoralf



Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 08:39 Reply with quote Back to top

JackassRampant wrote:
'Cuz really I'm bringing the argument that you always owe every opponent your A game, in any format where you're supposed to play to win.


And it's a shaky argument, if only because it compels you to abide by the same strategy in every given situation, which makes you vulnerable to being read like an open book by a good opponent. Unless you can argue predictable play is as good or better than unpredictable play, you have no case.

Moreover, your attitude shows dogmatism. It presumes you do know what is the optimal play in each situation. As soon as you accept that you haven't really studied the game to the point of certainty, it's better to introduce some stochastic elements in your play. In a nutshell, you test different things. Non-competitive games are ideal for experimenting.

And that's notwithstanding the fact that "I'm bringing my A game" is a poor excuse to trash a noob's team.

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 12:12 Reply with quote Back to top

JackassRampant wrote:
Nah, running up the score is actually smart play under many conditions. But leaving an avenue of attack on the ball, or not fouling a key player who could wreak havoc with the right vision and dice. Anything that you wouldn't do against a knowledgeable opponent. 'Cuz really I'm bringing the argument that you always owe every opponent your A game, in any format where you're supposed to play to win.


As far as the site rules are concerned you are probably right. Which is why I'd say that training games should be in the [L]eague division.

In reality though, I don't know how many people really take [R]anked that seriously. It is a judgement call. People should play to what they think is "reasonable". I am sure that many people use a fairly loose interpretation of "play to win". e.g. "don't cheat to boost coaches' teams or pad records".

Destroying noobs is not in the best interests of the site. Site data shows that a lot of coaches lose their first n games and are never seen again. I haven't specifically checked but I would guess that the severity of the defeat might affect how many games it takes for them to give it up.

I'd probably be more of a hardass in [B]ox than [R]anked but that is a personal thing.

_________________
Image
[SL] Rookie Rumble - Always recruiting - Brand new TV1000 teams only!
datom



Joined: Mar 22, 2017

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 13:39 Reply with quote Back to top

mrt1212 wrote:
To me, the ideal place to play games against coaches you enjoy playing against is Ranked.


On this, I'd agree, if we could get rid of the 'don't play the same opponent within 10 games' suggestion that exists out there. It's a bit self-defeating that I shouldn't play the same coach with a different matchup back-to-back, or be actively checking my R match list to make sure I'm not going to get reported. So I create L teams instead so I can play against coaches I like playing against at the timezone I'm available, and - crucially - can finish a game in an hour.

While I understand Ranked is 'competitive', playing people regularly doesn't seem like worse abuse than the current EU daytime of 8 coaches waiting for a Veteran to appear. I've kinda lost interest in developing Ranked teams because of not being able to play the players I want to regularly.

_________________
Image
Image
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 14:49 Reply with quote Back to top

thoralf wrote:
And it's a shaky argument, if only because it compels you to abide by the same strategy in every given situation, which makes you vulnerable to being read like an open book by a good opponent. Unless you can argue predictable play is as good or better than unpredictable play, you have no case.
Bringing your A game doesn't mean doing the same thing in the same situation all the time. It means assessing each situation and figuring out what to do based on the fundamental criterion, "how does it help me win this game?" If you have other criteria, like team preservation or a desire to be a good sport, that's all cool, but nothing justifies ignoring the final W/T/L result, or going against your W/T/L interests. It's not a dogmatic "if X, do Y" thing, it's a teleological thing.

_________________
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and Tackle Zones; reddened blades of grass.
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 14:59 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
As far as the site rules are concerned you are probably right. Which is why I'd say that training games should be in the [L]eague division.
Agreed. Teaching and training games must be in League, no? The closest thing to a training game that should be allowed in Ranked would be an assessment game between two established coaches at different skill levels. Right now, I'm mostly talking about chance encounters.

koadah wrote:
In reality though, I don't know how many people really take [R]anked that seriously.
That's because the site is struggling and we have too high a veteran:newcomer ratio. If we had a thriving site with thousands of coaches, Ranked would have a very different character.

koadah wrote:
Destroying noobs is not in the best interests of the site. Site data shows that a lot of coaches lose their first n games and are never seen again. I haven't specifically checked but I would guess that the severity of the defeat might affect how many games it takes for them to give it up.
Yah. But I think, rather than just saying, "don't destroy your opponent, cuz it could be bad for the site," we need a program to incorporate noobs into the fabric of FUMBBL, and get them up to speed, so that while they're being destroyed, they're a) a part of something, and b) getting better fast and not getting destroyed as regularly. Won't work for all of them, but will help retention, I think.

datom wrote:
mrt1212 wrote:
To me, the ideal place to play games against coaches you enjoy playing against is Ranked.


On this, I'd agree, if we could get rid of the 'don't play the same opponent within 10 games' suggestion that exists out there. It's a bit self-defeating that I shouldn't play the same coach with a different matchup back-to-back, or be actively checking my R match list to make sure I'm not going to get reported. So I create L teams instead so I can play against coaches I like playing against at the timezone I'm available, and - crucially - can finish a game in an hour.

While I understand Ranked is 'competitive', playing people regularly doesn't seem like worse abuse than the current EU daytime of 8 coaches waiting for a Veteran to appear. I've kinda lost interest in developing Ranked teams because of not being able to play the players I want to regularly.
I'd quit Ranked (and wouldn't consider coming back to the tournament scene, regardless of my ability to play during the day), if coaches were allowed to play the same teams against each other back to back, willy-nilly. If the 10 game rule were changed to 6 games or something, that's fine, but then it has to be enforced literally.

Re: 8 coaches waiting for a veteran, yah, that's a trip back to the OP. You're never gonna make it so people do anything but what they want to do, so you ban the worst abuses and try to find other ways to encourage people out of the other stuff. Maybe the problem is in CR? I know Christer tweaked the formula around a few months ago... but even if CR were redesigned so it didn't encourage people to play down at all, some coaches would still game W%. I guess a proper format would have things in it to make those folks look silly ("hey, look, JoeBlow has a 90% W rate and a CR 155, must be a royal cherrypicker!"), but not all of them care. And right now, we'd have a lot of noise. Maybe JoeBlow went on a Stunty kick or something.

_________________
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and Tackle Zones; reddened blades of grass.


Last edited by JackassRampant on Jul 12, 2018 - 15:19; edited 1 time in total
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 15:17 Reply with quote Back to top

JackassRampant wrote:
.
That's because the site is struggling and we have too high a veteran:newcomer ratio. If we had a thriving site with thousands of coaches, Ranked would have a very different character.

I don't think so.
When I played BB1 Cyanide (with a way bigger population compared to Fumbbl) before matchmaking was added and you had to offer/refuse games, most of the offers were blatantly one-sided.
In other words, human beings, if allowed to pick/refuse in an environment (not necessarily Ranked, since people pick/refuse in SL and Stunty Leeg as well) will try to have the edge in the match up, unless they don't care, they pursue weird personal agenda or they are too clueless to assess properly a match up.
If picking/refusing has to happen, it should happen in League division only so it will not affect the site rankings.
Introductory, tutorial matches with expert coaches mentoring newcomers should take place in League division only(also, there is less incentive in thrashing a noob if you don't gain CR points and you don't build your team up for a major in the process).
For competitive gaming (with ranking points gain/loss) matchmaking-only in Black Box division.
Is Black Box perfect? No, it has flaws like occasional TV gap matches, but it's the best division for purpose of competitive playing (competitive in the sense of gaining CR and creating site rankings, so we don't get lost in endless debates about the definition of "competitive").


edit. tutorial games in League should not affect the overall win% of both coaches.
This way new coaches don't risk to ruin their win rate while they are moving the first steps in BB, and the expert coaches caring for their ego are free to mess around with sub-par and tier 3 teams, their precious win rate being unaffected.

_________________
Please vote the Diving Catch and Break Tackle/Diving Tackle bug reports, thanks!


Last edited by MattDakka on Jul 12, 2018 - 15:29; edited 3 times in total
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 15:22 Reply with quote Back to top

If R didn't exist, that would maybe work, because people would be forced into B, meaning maybe B would have a large enough population that it didn't exclude people based on schedule and geography. But for now, that's a pipe dream. Or a "merge the divisions" argument, which is also a pipe dream. And if we did, what then? There'd be NO discussion of the ethics of handling newcomers. Everybody would play to splatter them all the time. We'd be in the same spot.

EDIT:
MattDakka wrote:
edit. tutorial games in League should not affect the overall win% of both coaches.
This way new coaches don't risk to ruin their win rate while they are moving the first steps in BB, and the expert coaches caring for their ego are free to mess around with sub-par and tier 3 teams, their precious win rate being unaffected.
I agree with this, and I think a way to register a game as un-competitive would be incidentally great for the NBFL! Very Happy

_________________
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and Tackle Zones; reddened blades of grass.


Last edited by JackassRampant on Jul 12, 2018 - 15:35; edited 1 time in total
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 15:33 Reply with quote Back to top

About the less populated timezones:
if the Box scheduler didn't show the exact number of coaches activating, collusion would be harder and maybe matches could be arranged even with 2 or 3 coaches.
Knowing exactly how many coaches are activating may discourage activations.

_________________
Please vote the Diving Catch and Break Tackle/Diving Tackle bug reports, thanks!


Last edited by MattDakka on Jul 12, 2018 - 15:37; edited 1 time in total
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 15:37 Reply with quote Back to top

Do I hear 2 coaches? 'cuz late at night Ranked is basically like that. You log on, and if anybody else is on, you play the matchup game until you either find one you like, or decide that the other guy is a dirty picker. It's almost like Blackbox for 2 coaches, but with a few pickers muddying the waters, and without the stupid matchups.

_________________
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and Tackle Zones; reddened blades of grass.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 15:41 Reply with quote Back to top

The stupid match ups (if you are referring to TV gap) could be reduced by adding a TV gap cap and/or forbidding high TV team monoactivation (for example, you can't activate only 1 team if its TV is over 2000).

_________________
Please vote the Diving Catch and Break Tackle/Diving Tackle bug reports, thanks!
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 15:48 Reply with quote Back to top

JackassRampant wrote:
Quote:
In reality though, I don't know how many people really take [R]anked that seriously.
That's because the site is struggling and we have too high a veteran:newcomer ratio. If we had a thriving site with thousands of coaches, Ranked would have a very different character.


Ranked may have a different character but there would still be plenty of people who "just want a game" and are not at all bothered will all that "competitive nonsense" Wink

So, yes. Some people may well avoid "overly competitive" coaches for fear that they may not be much fun. Wink

JackassRampant wrote:

Quote:
Destroying noobs is not in the best interests of the site. Site data shows that a lot of coaches lose their first n games and are never seen again. I haven't specifically checked but I would guess that the severity of the defeat might affect how many games it takes for them to give it up.
Yah. But I think, rather than just saying, "don't destroy your opponent, cuz it could be bad for the site," we need a program to incorporate noobs into the fabric of FUMBBL, and get them up to speed, so that while they're being destroyed, they're a) a part of something, and b) getting better fast and not getting destroyed as regularly. Won't work for all of them, but will help retention, I think.


If I thought that that was what [R]anked was about I would advise people to keep out of it. As it stands, people can be "competitive" or not as it suits them. If you want to get rid of less competitive people hardcore coaches will have noone else to play against. Wink

_________________
Image
[SL] Rookie Rumble - Always recruiting - Brand new TV1000 teams only!
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 15:57 Reply with quote Back to top

Edited @ 17:00. Please reread.

@Koadah, the goal is to make everyone happy (or at least everyone, on balance, happier), not to get rid of some people. We need to expand. But it's a hard-nosed game, and if you can't handle the vicissitudes of Nuffle, you're not gonna stick, and that's okay so long as plenty of others do stick. Playing BB means getting destroyed sometimes. By your opponent. Deliberately. And the worse you are, the more it happens (though it never really stops).

Can't wait for that new LFG, with the chat window. Will make my personal life much easier. When someone greenlights me, I can figure out why before I take the game, make sure that it's really what they wanna do. I do believe that I've done more good than harm, but I'm sure I've driven more than one coach away, even as I've helped others get to their feet, and enticed still others to the site. And I'd like to just be doing good.

Re: "less competitive": I don't think "competitiveness" as a relative thing is the issue. I play the Ranked Amateurs, who are basically MA-busted Humans, without a proper bench, at a TV way above their sweet spot, and I pay a small price for doing so, and that's completely beside the point because our culture has decided that team development and composition are not proper aspects of "competitive" play on FUMBBL. I think the issue is a difference in interpreting the rule that you must play in a manner intended to achieve a positive result in W/T/L terms. I think we all agree that if you're not down with that basic principle, as you see it, you should be playing in open League. Like Faculty games and stuff. But we don't all see that principle the same way.

_________________
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and Tackle Zones; reddened blades of grass.
datom



Joined: Mar 22, 2017

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 17:19 Reply with quote Back to top

JackassRampant wrote:
I'd quit Ranked (and wouldn't consider coming back to the tournament scene, regardless of my ability to play during the day), if coaches were allowed to play the same teams against each other back to back, willy-nilly. If the 10 game rule were changed to 6 games or something, that's fine, but then it has to be enforced literally.


Yeah, maybe not abolished completely, so maybe cannot play in 6, or three times in 10, but 9 games is a lot to play to rematch against your buddy with an inverse of a matchup. Just a common sense application I suppose.

JackassRampant wrote:
Maybe the problem is in CR? I know Christer tweaked the formula around a few months ago... but even if CR were redesigned so it didn't encourage people to play down at all, some coaches would still game W%.


I think that's the interesting thing, I'm not even sure it's about CR - I think it's about winning. Best way to game CR would be to play Legend coaches who were gridfilling or something with unfair matches, playing new players risks a huge fall with a dicing and only a tiny gain with the expected win, as I understand it..

_________________
Image
Image
thoralf



Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Post   Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 17:34 Reply with quote Back to top

JackassRampant wrote:
Bringing your A game doesn't mean doing the same thing in the same situation all the time. It means assessing each situation and figuring out what to do based on the fundamental criterion, "how does it help me win this game?"


It's easy to satisfy this criterion without bringing one's A game, JR.

Also, your wording underspecifies that bringing one's A game is about optimizing one's winning chances, not only satisficing them. That is, you make an effort to play what you think are the best moves, not good enough moves. While there may be equivalent satisfying moves, optimal moves tend to stand alone.

How does one establish that one optimizes one's winning chances exactly? In your own case, it's clear that it's all about reducing losing chances. That is, most of the times, you'll play conservatively. But there's conservative play and conservative play. You're no Malmir - increasing the number of blocks isn't always the safest. What works against noobs doesn't always work against high-risk high-rewards players.

Think of it this way. In a random R game, it's OK to just play the first moves you see. No need to push for more. It might even be a good way to train you to see the good moves first.

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
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