FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 14:52

I think BR should be a slight handicap in the formula. How much? 10TR = 5TS feels about right. So a 170BR vs a 150BR would create a 10TS handicap.

_________________
\x/es

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 15:18

DukeTyrion wrote:

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).

OK I see what you mean.

Personally, I'd be happy to get 10/10/10 Smile

I'd be surprised if Christer was imposing huge TS differences to even up games.
Depending on who is in the box I think that you will get some fair sized TS gaps or no game at all anyway.

Top coaches will have to play rookies just because of the teams available but I don't have a problem approaching 10/10/10 because you are mainly playing coaches of a similar standard with similar teams.

This is an ALPHA system. Are you sure that all this discussion is not just over a bug? Smile

Until Christer responds I charge Duke with scaremongering. Smile

_________________

[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May!

funnyfingers

Joined: Nov 13, 2005

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 15:28

I'd play but to relate to CR I think it is exploited. And just like Duke said in another thread, if it helps you out people will just use an easier team. Then again some people like having a higher rating. If it is in it probably would help me since I probably will have an all halfing team with no treemen to keep mine low:)

Mattybee

Joined: Mar 22, 2007

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 15:29

Right now I'm trying to work out why people are playing so far down in TR/TS.

So far, looking at PurpleChest's games, I cannot for the life of me figure out why his orcs are playing 19TR down against StrawberryKiss' dorfs, but teams frequently play down against his other match with weird TR - BranMort's undead, who are generally sitting on approximately a ton of gold.

I don't know if it's as bad as stated but maybe we should open up a seperate thread to report weird mismatches?

RC

Joined: Sep 22, 2005

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 15:35

Because TR isn't calculated in the formula.

_________________
"Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar."

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 15:38

Optihut wrote:

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

Depends on what you mean by slightly. TS120 vs TS 100? Just one match, probably option 3 with the BC match being more likely. TS 108 vs TS 100? Make it option 1. In my opinion a 10% difference in TS (after applying racial matchup chart) should be the cutoff, no matter what BRs are involved.
That said, I have no problem that high BR coaches are more likely to play against each other.

JanMattys

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 15:50

koadah wrote:

DukeTyrion wrote:

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).

OK I see what you mean.

Personally, I'd be happy to get 10/10/10 Smile

I'd be surprised if Christer was imposing huge TS differences to even up games.
Depending on who is in the box I think that you will get some fair sized TS gaps or no game at all anyway.

Top coaches will have to play rookies just because of the teams available but I don't have a problem approaching 10/10/10 because you are mainly playing coaches of a similar standard with similar teams.

This is an ALPHA system. Are you sure that all this discussion is not just over a bug? Smile

Until Christer responds I charge Duke with scaremongering. Smile

I hope this discussion will help Christer decide the changes (if any) when we're ready to get out of Alpha. Nothing wrong to voice out one's opinions on the matter, as soon as it's in a polite and cooperative way. Me and Duke, and you and Mithrilpoint, are at the opposite sides of this thing, but I guess we all get to see the points in others' argumentations.

_________________

Grod

Joined: Sep 30, 2003

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 15:53

Correct me if i'm wrong but...

Because Blackbox gives random match-ups, then good coaches will on average be matched against less-skilled coaches. This means that for a decent coach, the number of games they play (presuming they win a decent percentage) will be the strongest factor determining their ranking. So if a player wins 90% of their games, but has only played X Blackbox games, he will be ranked lower than someone who wins 80% of their games, but has played 3X Blackbox games?

_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.

Oscar Wilde

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 16:04

Depends... the BR-adjustment could be done by taking the opponents BR into account - just not the matchmaking. Apart from that, the BR could simply be the win%. In both cases the BR will not depend on the number of games as long as X is sufficiently high (50+ I`d say)

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 16:06

This is my tuppence. Do coaches with cr ratings in the 140s struggle to find balanced games in ranked? No. Do coaches with a cr of 170 struggle to find balanced games in ranked particularly outside of peak times? Yes.

So what does that tell us about the type of person black box will appeal to?

Personally I can't see any reason why a coach with a low cr would want or need to play black box games, if we accept they know what a fair game is.

Right now, and how I feel, but I maybe proved wrong. Blackbox really is for the upper echelons of coaches getting fair games against each other. What is the appeal to lower cr coaches?

Cyco

Joined: Nov 30, 2003

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 16:18

Where is the "I dont mind" and "I want CR/BR separate" - choice?

_________________
Never drive faster then your angels can fly.

DukeTyrion

Joined: Feb 18, 2004

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 16:27

Cyco wrote:

Where is the "I dont mind" and "I want CR/BR separate" - choice?

The 'I don't mind' was the last option, for people who didn't want to vote yes, or no.

The CR and BR are seperate, the BR just isn't visible as yet.

Optihut

Joined: Dec 16, 2004

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 16:28

Cyco wrote:

Where is the "I dont mind" and "I want CR/BR separate" - choice?

I don't mind doesn't exist, because it would be pointless to poll someone for an opinion, who doesn't have an opinion on the issue.
The latter is a different issue and doesn't touch the current debate.

SillySod

Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 17:31

Personally I would be happy to see BR affect matchups. However there is a risk that it will end up horribly skewing matches which is undesirable.... so I'd be in favour of it as long as there is some kind of ultimate cap on TS difference or something else that stops you getting really dumb matchups.

Apart from the occasional totally ridiculous matchup my only objection would be if it meant we ended up with a global BR rather than one for each team Smile

_________________
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."

Purplegoo

Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 - 17:35

I voted No but would play regardless.

I want even on-paper matches. I think trying to level coach abilities up leads to bad situations where newer / poorer coaches don't get to test themselves and sometimes turnover better coaches, etc. I'd also like to play a wide range of guys, and not just vanilla teams that the better coaches tend to produce (for good reason, as well), and coaches with an agenda. Such as Burn, for instance, who is a great coach and a great guy, but if he runs a [B] Darkbones team, his BR will be low enough that I might not get the fun of playing him.

Plus, if it threw up better coach with lower TS Vs worse coach with higher TS, I dunno, that just feels a bit lamer to me.