JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
 Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:24 |
 
|
You don't get it.
TS is there to provide us with an indicator of fair games between TEAMS. If we play on even terms, and I'm a master bloodbowler and you are a n00b, I win 95 times out of 100 given even teams.
I think pairings should simply go by TS. (and then, we can work to make TS better and better)
What's wrong with THAT? I don't see why DivB should help bad coaches by providing them easier matchups to be able to compete against PeteW on equal terms. PeteW IS better than them, he IS supposed to hand them their asses... And they will probably learn something in the process, making them better coaches in the long run. If you create a system that aims at fair games (see my definition) then you make poor coaches think they are better than they are, because you give them a theoretical chance of 50% to beat PeteW.
On a side note: as a "veteran" bbowler I have noticed something pretty nasty about this game: the more you suck, the more you feel you're unlucky. We all know it's true. Good coaches rarely blame Nuffle, while poor ones keep bitching at the dice
Now, (WARNING: personal opinion ahead) giving poor coaches a theoretical chance to take down the big guns won't make them any good. On the contrary, it'll slow down their learning curve by making them overperform and feeling more confident than they should be. This to me is not a good thing... but again, this is completely a personal opinion and I understand some will disagree.  |
_________________
 |
|
TheCetusProject
Joined: May 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:31 |
|
Jan, I think you are misunderstanding what SeraphimRed is proposing: not to give weak coaches a TS advantage against strong coaches, but instead if given the choice between an equal TS game against an equal coach, or an equal game against an unequal coach, give the totally equal game a better matching value.
So a matchup would get a suitability value based on TS and racial factors, and then it would be modified for the difference between BR. The result would be some sort of ordering from best to worst matches:
equal TS vs equal coach
equal TS vs unequal coach / slightly unequal TS vs equal coach
higher TS vs better coach / lower TS vs worse coach
lower TS vs better coach / higher TS vs worse coach
edited a silly mistake |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:39 |
|
@Sera:
For me a balanced game is a match, where the odds of winning are not significantly changed, if the opponents would switch their teams.
Most people that are participating in this discussion seem to agree, not matter if they would belong to the ones getting the advantage or being at disadvantage.
For me bloodbowl should be fun. Playing up 15+% in TS is fun occasionally, but it`s work, too. You have no room for the occasional fun or risky move. No showing off nice chainpushes and similar stuff. In order to have a chance in this kind of matchup, you have to play with cold efficiency if your opponent isn`t either a complete noob making capital mistakes or a victim of your godly dice. And to be honest, I have a hard time feeling respect for my opponent if he has such a headstart and I am tempted to let that show in sneaky remarks. I don`t want to disrespect my opponent. Therefore I don`t play [B] - and probably won`t play on a serious level as long as BR remains in the matchmaking. Maybe I will make loss-tanking no-tree-flings to completely trash my BR and BBR to make and orc/chaos teams that will make other killers (that actually win some time) weep |
Last edited by CircularLogic on %b %17, %2008 - %13:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:40 |
|
| SeraphimRed wrote: |
And yes... in R, everyone strives to get balanced games and CR is very accurate. Remind me why we have [B] again?  |
heh, yeah! Balanced games in R.
I dont know why, but my sarcasm detector just started making funny sounds |
|
|
Unstoffe
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:45 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: |
| TheCetusProject wrote: |
I am too ill to work out what this all means right now... can someone tell me if my understanding is right: I am a wimpy coach who never causes injuries, if there are two fair matches against teams coached by equal BR coaches, but one is much bashier, the less bashy one is a better match for me?
|
Nope
|
Ah, surely, yes?
The way it works is, the two coaches' postions are plotted on a graph with BR as one axis and BB(ash)R on the other. The distance between the two points on the graph is then used as a factor in determining the suitability of the matchup.
So... if a potential opponent is as wimpy as you  and also just as good / bad at scoring, the ideal match between you will be with equal TS.
If he is bashier than you with equal BR, then as things stand the Box will tend to give you a TS advantage.
One thing I can't work out from Christer's explanation... if there are two coaches A & B, and A's BR is higher than B's, but A's BBR is lower, then the 'distance' between them will be high - but neither positive nor negative... so, how can TS compensate for this? Does this mean two such coaches are very unlikely to meet? This would explain how my rats are yet to meet Khemri I guess... |
_________________
British or thereabouts? Check out the White Isle League
Last edited by Unstoffe on %b %17, %2008 - %13:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:47 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | @Sera:
For me a balanced game is a match, where the odds of winning are not significantly changed, if the opponents would switch their teams. |
Yes, but suppose you could take said balanced matchup and then add in a factor that means noobs tend to be paired vs other noobs while vets get paired vs vets more often. As long as the matches themselves are even, there should be no problem, right? |
_________________
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." |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:53 |
|
| Unstoffe wrote: | | CircularLogic wrote: |
| TheCetusProject wrote: |
I am too ill to work out what this all means right now... can someone tell me if my understanding is right: I am a wimpy coach who never causes injuries, if there are two fair matches against teams coached by equal BR coaches, but one is much bashier, the less bashy one is a better match for me?
|
Nope
|
Ah, surely, yes?
The way it works is, the two coaches' postions are plotted on a graph with BR as one axis and BB(ash)R on the other. The distance between the two points on the graph is then used as a factor in determining the suitability of the matchup.
So... if a potential opponent is as wimpy as you and also just as good / bad at scoring, the ideal match between you will be with equal TS.
If he is bashier than you with equal BR, then as things stand the Box will tend to give you a TS advantage.
One thing I can't work out from Christer's explanation... if there are two coaches A & B, and A's BR is higher than B's, but A's BBR is lower, then the 'distance' between them will be high - but neither positive nor negative... so, how can TS compensate for this? Does this mean two such coaches are very unlikely to meet? This would explain how my rats are yet to meet Khemri I guess... |
That depends. If that bashy coach has a team with a lower TS than the wimpy coach, then he could be the better match, because TS difference offsets the bash/win ratio. So you play with low cas and have 50% win, then you could either play on even TS against a coach with equal BR and BBR or get a TS advantage over a coach with equal BR but more casualties on his account. And I`d say it`s just as likely, that a basher-coach has a team 3TS below yours than a wimpy coach has a team with your TS. |
|
|
TheCetusProject
Joined: May 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:56 |
|
While I suppose the reason for the BBR is to marginalise the annoying teams that lose every match 5-0 because they spend all their time trying to kill things, it seems strange that I should be given an easier ride against an equal coach based on casualties. |
|
|
SeraphimRed
Joined: Feb 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:57 |
|
Some folk get my point, others don't, I'll leave it at that than keep banging on. I guess we all have different ideas on what [B] should or shouldn't be.
I will say this though, since Jan is concerned that nOObs will get overly inflated ideas above their station: yes, coaches of a similar ability would play each other in my implementation, in the short term. But ultimately as their BR increased/decreased so too they'd meet other coaches and the scale would slide either way.
As I said, we'd have coach brackets in ranges of say 5 or 10 to nullify the need for large TS differences. The more popular [B] becomes the less likely this is to get in way of teams not find a suitable opponent. |
_________________
Enhance YOUR FUMBBL
Last edited by SeraphimRed on %b %17, %2008 - %14:%Nov; edited 2 times in total |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:59 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | CircularLogic wrote: | @Sera:
For me a balanced game is a match, where the odds of winning are not significantly changed, if the opponents would switch their teams. |
Yes, but suppose you could take said balanced matchup and then add in a factor that means noobs tend to be paired vs other noobs while vets get paired vs vets more often. As long as the matches themselves are even, there should be no problem, right? |
As long as the teams are even as defined above, pairing up coaches according to their ability is a nice thing to have, true. But coaching ability is way harder to judge, especially as coaches have different apporaches and different goals in the game. So pairing coaches by win% is nice, but not crucial IMHO. Else weaker coaches will face coaches that enjoy a good team destruction more often. |
|
|
SeraphimRed
Joined: Feb 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 14:01 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | SillySod wrote: | | CircularLogic wrote: | @Sera:
For me a balanced game is a match, where the odds of winning are not significantly changed, if the opponents would switch their teams. |
Yes, but suppose you could take said balanced matchup and then add in a factor that means noobs tend to be paired vs other noobs while vets get paired vs vets more often. As long as the matches themselves are even, there should be no problem, right? |
As long as the teams are even as defined above, pairing up coaches according to their ability is a nice thing to have, true. But coaching ability is way harder to judge, especially as coaches have different apporaches and different goals in the game. So pairing coaches by win% is nice, but not crucial IMHO. Else weaker coaches will face coaches that enjoy a good team destruction more often. |
This is true, but we already said that the BBR should be factored in somehow, as it currently is now. |
_________________
Enhance YOUR FUMBBL
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 14:10 |
|
Yes.. but the different factors (difference in TS, BR and BBR) should not be offsetting each other. That is the big point we are argueing. We all agree, that in utopia equal teams would play equally skilled coaches. So if 2 coaches are in the box with multiple teams and they differ significantly in coaching ability, shall they a) not be paired or b) paired with equal TS or c) paired with the weaker coach having a significant TS advantage?
The current choice is c) while I am argueing for option b) or a), not caring which of these two. |
|
|
SeraphimRed
Joined: Feb 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 14:22 |
|
I would obviously vote A given my stance throughout.
But given enough coaches, with enough teams and a reasonable amount of maneuverability in BR/BBR then few people should be disappointed come game time by not being paired up.
But if pairing up is paramount then a catchall would be implemented whereby those that weren't paired are paired up with the BR/BBR offsetting TS factor (the new one).
I really don't envy Christer.  |
_________________
Enhance YOUR FUMBBL
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 14:36 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | Yes.. but the different factors (difference in TS, BR and BBR) should not be offsetting each other. That is the big point we are argueing. We all agree, that in utopia equal teams would play equally skilled coaches. So if 2 coaches are in the box with multiple teams and they differ significantly in coaching ability, shall they a) not be paired or b) paired with equal TS or c) paired with the weaker coach having a significant TS advantage?
The current choice is c) while I am argueing for option b) or a), not caring which of these two. |
You forgot option d) Paired with the stronger coach having the TS advantage.
If you just ignore BR you will get d) as often as you get c).
a) means fewer matches.
I think that most would go for (b i.e. no 50% rule but where (b is not possible I like (c before (a.
Edit: though I'd remove 'significant' |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
Unstoffe
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 14:48 |
|
OK, read the first post again
| Christer wrote: |
The suitability score takes the win probability for both these figures based on respective ranking and strength
|
To me that means you have a win probability in the traditional sense, i.e. most TDs, and another one in the sense of out-bashing your opponent.
So going back to the likelyhood of meeting a bashier coach than you with the same sort of BR... for it to happen, you would need both your 'TD win' and 'bash win' probabilities to be similar. For the P(bash win) to be similar, you will need more TS to make up the difference . But for P(TD win) to be similar, you need around the same TS.
Ergo, such a matchup is unlikely.
Also, you may be reading too much into Christer's 'BR is based on winning TDs', not sure this means 'the more you win by, the higher your BR'. I think he was just saying, 'BR is based on winning in terms of TDs, BBR on winning in terms of cas'.
Clever stuff really...
Oh, and unless I wasn't clear, [B] rules. Cheers Big C |
_________________
British or thereabouts? Check out the White Isle League |
|
|
|
| |
killing by fun?
Search
