| Poll |
| Do you want BR in the Formula? |
| Yes - And if it is removed, I will likely leave Blackbox |
|
4% |
[ 10 ] |
| Yes - But I would play Blackbox regardless |
|
23% |
[ 53 ] |
| No - But I would play Blackbox regardless |
|
39% |
[ 91 ] |
| No - And if it remains, I will likely leave Blackbox |
|
20% |
[ 48 ] |
| Unsure - I have not decided, or do not understand BR |
|
12% |
[ 28 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 230 |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
 Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 13:03 |
 
|
I would be really interested in how Christer got around the "those who don't play to win but to kill will have even more chances to get easier prey" problem.
I'm sure he worked on something to prevent that... I would be really interested in what it is... sheer curiosity, if you want. |
_________________
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 13:11 |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 13:13 |
|
| koadah wrote: | I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the top coaches should lose to complete rookies 50% of the time.
|
But, I think that is exactly what is suggested.
I believe the formula is aimed at getting a 50% win rate for everyone.
If at the end of the day a BR 170 coach has to give up 40 TS every time he plays a BR 140 coach to get to that point, then I think the current formula will change to that.
With the current system, we are moving towards everyone losing to everyone 50% of the time.
Sounds great in theory, a bit like comunism. But If I am a good Rat coach and a crap High Elf coach, then I want my rats to have a w/d/l rating of 20/10/8, whilst my High Elves sit at 10/8/16 or such.
With the current system, every coach after enough time will look at the teams and see 10/10/10.
I can see that getting quite boring, quite quickly (from my perspective). |
|
|
Mattybee
Joined: Mar 22, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 13:14 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | If we have Flix, PeteW, Rookie1 and Rookie2 all in a similar range I would rather see Flix vs PeteW and Rookie1 vs Rookie2 than the big dogs vs the rookies. |
Are we assuming "all other things equal", like in terms of TR/TS, they would be roughly equal games?
If so, I agree with this, and that's pretty much the only way I'd like to see BR implemented - as a tiebreaker, almost? |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
[sarcasm]yeah cos a system that is weighted to reflect the difficulty of the coaches , as well as the game, like for example the championship is often highly respected.[/sarcasm]
IF BR is factored in then any sense of B being a competitive division in any way other than personally is lost. comparisons between coaches and teams will be meaningless and any championships/tourneys will be irrelevant.
It all just becomes a crap shoot. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 14:04 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | | IF BR is factored in then any sense of B being a competitive division in any way other than personally is lost. comparisons between coaches and teams will be meaningless and any championships/tourneys will be irrelevant. |
i beg to differ, good sir...
i play in an international pool league...APA...it's one of the major sponsors for professional pool leagues...
in the league, every player has a skill level, that correlates to...well..a player's skill...the rankings go from 2-7, low to high...
the system uses the ranking levels to determine how many games a player must win to win a matchup between two players...
example, if an SL2 player goes against an SL7 player, the SL2 player has to win 2 matches, and the SL7 player has to win 7....it's not always a straight up "your skill level is how many games you must win", but the example serves the purpose....
the reason it is there is to provide equal opportunity for anyone who plays the game to win...so a low skill player has just as much chance to win as a high skill player....
of course, the high skill level player wins more often than the low skill, but paper matchups can only go so far, before experience and overall ability starts to take over...
regardless...the league is highly competitive, going so far as to have national tournaments in Vegas several times a year, for pretty large cash pots...in fact, singles tournament total pot is $250K, with the winner taking home $15K...even on a local level, personal skill level is something that every player cherishes and high skill level players are quite praised, and feared for their abilities on a pool table....
so yes, you can have competition while still working towards having a level ground for everyone to take part...BR will not be rendered useless, it will still be a great tool for comparisons and for competitiveness between coaches....in the end, while the grounds may be leveled somewhat, the higher BR coach should outcoach the lower, and more often than not come out with the win...
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 14:11 |
|
I had no problem if an experienced coach has to win an even game more often in order to make it count. Would you still like to play in your pool league, if a match consisted of just one round and the player with less skills was given a massive headstart to even the odds? How would it feel if you had a 50% shot at winning against the world champion because he got so massively handicapped? |
Last edited by CircularLogic on %b %14, %2008 - %14:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
nin
Joined: May 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 14:12 |
|
I would prefer BR not to ne included, and probably neither Race.
Amazons getting a lot of TS advantage over Dwarves feels like me getting TS for facing PurpleChest (he has become the most common example  )
Chaos getting TS advantage on their first matches feels unbalancing because they are suposed to be bad at low TR and they are killers at high TR
But I won't care that much, because if you have high BR you are probably winning more than losing even if it count for the matchups.
It would have an impact on the w/t/l record, but not in the BR itshelf, so there will still be competition.
(On the other hand, getting to top BR just to see that afterwards all your matches are played with cripling TS disadvantage doesn't sound much fun, but that's unlikely to be my problem  ) |
|
|
Mattybee
Joined: Mar 22, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 14:25 |
|
People are also making the assumption that TS/TR are going to be completely balanced out by looking at BR, when I've seen no indication that that's going to happen. If a crap coach plays PurpleChest, maybe they'll get a little TR/TS boost, but it's not going to be like "Okay, CoachA's 16 man Chaos with doubles on every guy gets to play PurpleChest's 9-man nothing-but-halflings fling team" or anything like that. |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 14:26 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | I had no problem if an experienced coach has to win an even game more often in order to make it count. Would you still like to play in your pool league, if a match consisted of just one round and the player with less skills was given a massive headstart to even the odds? How would it feel if you had a 50% shot at winning against the world champion because he got so massively handicapped? |
see, the system is set up so nobody can win off of a fluke one-match game...
unfortunately, since our system isn't built off of multi-game matches, the system obviously isn't able to translate...but the fact still remains that with a handicapping system, there is still massive amounts of competition...i would even argue that the reason there is so much competition is partially because of the handicapping system....it gives more opportunity for more people to get involved and not be handicapped even further by not only having a lower skill level than the opposition, but having to play on their level...
and to answer your question....i'm not sure exactly how you mean it....so i'll answer it both ways...
if you mean using our handicapping system of my X games vs the world champions Y games.....yes i'd feel incredible if i beat him...
if you mean i got a 7 ball spot in a one-off game...obviously the feeling would be diluted...thankfully our system doesn't use one-off matches
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 14:36 |
|
Taking the Smack scenario into account (which I thought Blackbox would emulate), you might as well give different entry levels per CR.
You could say an Elite Smack would be 176-200 for CR 150-160 coaches, but CR 140 and under would be allowed to enter a TR 250 team and a CR 170 coach would have to enter a TR 150 team. Which in turn means that the smack win is devalued to the point of being worthless.
I knew something would come along to blow the ideal that was Blackbox out of the water and here it is.
Oh well, my all skeleton and shortly to follow all zombie teams should lose enough that the rest of me teams get reasonable matches. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 14:37 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: | ...thankfully our system doesn't use one-off matches
--j |
The system is nothing more than a series of one off matches. |
|
|
ahalfling
Joined: Aug 16, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 14:39 |
|
Is it possible that the +/- TS matchups are based, not on the coach's W/L record, but on the team's W/L record? Because I think I've generally been getting tougher matchups (from a TS standpoint) with my Amazons (which haven't lost a game yet) than with my wood elves (which haven't won one). Of course, there may be other explanations for this -- if the scheduler takes race into account, for example. But I just wanted to throw that out there.
Anyway, I'm pretty strongly against the idea of BR, because (as people say) it introduces a smoothing effect on records, i.e., a 7-3 record doesn't mean "this team/coach can win roughly 70% of basically even matches", it means "this guy won 5 games, then the scheduler finally threw an opponent at him that was so much bigger that he couldn't win, but then he won the next one, so it gave him a couple other unavoidable losses, etc."
I don't like that. There's nothing wrong with a team having a really good record, if it's a really good and well-coached team. I want to see a 20-0 team, a team that faced even opposition and came out on top every time. That's a true achievement. I don't want to see the scheduler conspiring to keep that from happening.
I'm less adamantly opposed to a certain amount of race-based match-up scaling, though really only in notoriously uneven matches. (Amazons vs. Dwarfs is really the only one that comes to mind offhand...) And even then, I don't think the scheduler should try to artificially construct a straight 50-50 matchup -- an Amazon team will generally lose to a Dwarf team with an identical level of development, and I don't think that's a problem. I think that's inherent in the nature of Amazons. They're SUPPOSED to lose to dwarfs the vast majority of the time.
Now, if the scheduler wants to throw an extra 5-10 TS the Amazons' way, that's one thing. But if (for example) the data suggests that a TS175 Amazon team is (on average) evenly likely to win or lose vs. a TS 150 Dwarf team, that's too much of a gap -- that's manufacturing an "even" matchup at the expense of an even matchup. Match the 175 Amazons against 165-170 dwarves, maybe... that way, the dwarves get a match where their tackle is relevant to giving them the advantage, and the Amazons get the feeling of accomplishment if they manage to succeed against the odds. Or else just let the Amazons play even, and probably lose, and cope with it. |
_________________
Beat Claw, Play AV7
(Hell, I ran a forward passing orc team back in the '90s. You probably shouldn't listen to me. Ever.) |
|
WG|Dark_Angel
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 14:43 |
|
If Br was taken into account when calculating matches, then BR itself becomes entirely meaningless. If, as Christer says, every match has a 50% chance AFTER the skill of the player has been taken into account, then we can just dispense of the BR formula altogether. Where does BR reflect skill, then, if my BR is pushed down as soon as I start winning a few matches?
People will all end up with the same BR (roughly).
Besides, why include it in the matchmaking anyway? I really don't see a reason. |
|
|
Optihut
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 14:46 |
|
Since we are talking arbitrary examples, here's another one:
Coach A - good coach with a new team
Coach B, C - mediocre coaches with new teams
Coach D - mediocre coaches with slightly developed team
Should the scheduler...
1) allocate two matches A-D, B-C
2) just allocate one match B-C
3) just allocate one match A-B, A-C or B-C |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
