SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
 Posted:
Feb 12, 2008 - 15:04 |
 
|
Teams might have won lots at a certain TS but recently hit a TS where their race dosent win lots and *just* qualified for the skill survey by being in the wrong bracket?
Maybe not an issue but I thought I'd point this out. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Pro511
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
|
| Posted:
Sep 15, 2008 - 23:42 |
|
| pac wrote: | | Freppa wrote: | | Quote: | | There's no point just including the teams which have played for the longest - having played for a long time doesn't necessarily make a team/coach (or their skill selections) good. It just shows they're persistent. |
why oh why do you then use oldest as a criteria at all? |
Because they have more players in the Past Players list. Not only that, their Past Players lists tend to display a consistent pattern. A team with just 10 games but a 10/0/0 record wouldn't be much help, would it?
Okay, I have a suggestion: how about ruling out teams with a win% of over 70%?
(This would mean, for example, tautology's Axiom replacing the Blood Falcons in the DE review.)
Edit: I think I'm going to go ahead with this modification. |
Sorry for the half year bump up.
Pac, I've tried really hard to understand the logic behind the 70% cut off. There is clearly a minimum of 100 games (and the rest of the criteria seems to suggest several hundred.)
I'd love to know what skills the guy who's played 400 times and wins 85% of the time is picking. I was curious as to why he'd be excluded.
I also think that, with such a small sample size (sometimes as little as one team) it's easy for a quirk to get counted. For example, picking sprint for your orc thrower every time it's possible, wouldn't actually hurt your team all that much, nor would it lower the win % more than 10%. I wonder if there isn't a way to somehow include more data or teams.
Perhaps the real answer is that it's good enough. Heck, the LRB3 chart is usually good enough to talk me into choices. [Or whatever that chart that's stuck to the top of the forum is from...]
I think it's brilliant that you're doing this btw. Let me know if I can help. |
_________________
Previously intelligent. |
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 02, 2010 - 20:54 |
|
Hmm, anyone feel like giving this a go for LRB 6?  |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 02, 2010 - 20:56 |
|
Heh, let the client first be ready, and wait for the new meta game to be determined. Right now it would be a waste of time. |
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
