CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
 Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:38 |
 
|
| koadah wrote: | [Would the system be acceptable to you if there was a 'reasonable' maximum TS advantage?
[R] has one. |
You define 40TS as a reasonable TS advantage? How often have you played or wished to play against such an advantage? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:49 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | koadah wrote: | [Would the system be acceptable to you if there was a 'reasonable' maximum TS advantage?
[R] has one. |
You define 40TS as a reasonable TS advantage? How often have you played or wished to play against such an advantage? |
You got me. Writing in haste. 
[R] has a maximum TS advantage. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:58 |
|
The point I'm trying to make here is that we have to know the TS the scheduler is making the better coach give away to make reasonable criticism towards it.
Unless you think that playing from under 5(or even 10)TS is something that murders your hopes and dreams.
There won't be an exact match in TS always anyway so why no give the advantage away for some reason. You who wish to beat the best of the best with even teams: winning them at all makes your rating go up and in the following matches you might have equal teams.
Issues for me are not getting games against same race and getting games against same team twice(or more) in a row. I wouldn't mind giving TS away if I got to play another team. |
|
|
Unstoffe
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:11 |
|
OK, no maths this time, just my tuppence worth on the TS handicap question.
As I've said before, I don't really want a handicap against anybody, so I guess I'm basically in the 'match on TS only' camp.
But... I can see the case for a compromise here, on the part of those coaches essentially saying 'I'm one of the best here, I don't want to be playing up TS every game I get'. Sorry to put words in your mouths there, but I think that's the gist.
OK, you don't want to play up TS against, say, me. Well that's cool, as I don't want to play down TS either
But what about a game where the stats say you outclass your opponent enough to have a 90% chance of winning. Do you <i>really</i> need an even TS matchup here? Could you not live with giving them enough handicap so that you have, say, a mere 70% chance?
Concrete suggestion then : modify the formula such that if the BR of the two coaches (and I suppose BBR, or the vector* formed by both) are close enough (say, in CR terms, within 10 of each other), then they should not be considered when determining the suitability. Ideally, their weighting in the calculation would then increase, from zero at the threshold point, with the difference between the coaches.
* A bit of maths may have crept in there. Apologies |
_________________
British or thereabouts? Check out the White Isle League |
|
Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:15 |
|
Anyone out there who is all time being scheduled against higher TS? |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:58 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Being blindly matched and managing a team successful is a hard task. |
That is one of the things I like about B. I would also add Uniformity: that everyone else in the division faces the same challenge. That creates a unique playing environment. A quickmatch feature in R wouldn't accomplish that.
| Koigokoro wrote: | The point I'm trying to make here is that we have to know the TS the scheduler is making the better coach give away to make reasonable criticism towards it.
Unless you think that playing from under 5(or even 10)TS is something that murders your hopes and dreams.
There won't be an exact match in TS always anyway so why no give the advantage away for some reason |
I agree wholeheartedly. Before rejecting the current setup on strict-TS grounds, folks should consider how much and how often TS is being given away.
| Unstoffe wrote: | | But what about a game where the stats say you outclass your opponent enough to have a 90% chance of winning. Do you <i>really</i> need an even TS matchup here? Could you not live with giving them enough handicap so that you have, say, a mere 70% chance? |
I smell a compromise.
Rather than design for 50% win probability of every match, AVERAGE each match towards 50%.
To use your example, 90-10 match has a distance of 40 from the middle point (50-50). Cut distance in half to 20, and you get 70-30.
70-30 becomes 60-40
60-40 becomes 55-45
======================
One aspect of B I think should be rethought is BBR. Based on Circ's spreadsheet, it doesn't appear to affect the matchup very much. Potential hole (as I believe others have also noted) is that those who like killing and don't care about winning, would get to do it against increasingly easier opposition over time. I think there should be a point where BBR trumps BR. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 17:37 |
|
| Koigokoro wrote: | | Anyone out there who is all time being scheduled against higher TS? |
Ask Forrest_Gump.  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 17:53 |
|
| westerner wrote: |
One aspect of B I think should be rethought is BBR. Based on Circ's spreadsheet, it doesn't appear to affect the matchup very much. Potential hole (as I believe others have also noted) is that those who like killing and don't care about winning, would get to do it against increasingly easier opposition over time. I think there should be a point where BBR trumps BR. |
I have noted on this before but it seems you missed it - BBR does influence the matchmaking. It is true, it barelly influences the TS handicap the weaker coach would get (unless they are very close in BR). But it decreases the likelyhood of being matched against a coach whose playstyle (BR/BBR ratio) differs from you.
Set coach 1to 150/160 TS 150 and coach 2 to 150/150. The best match for this is at TS 152 - not much. But the best score that is possible for these 2 coaches to meet is below 960. If you now change coach1 to 160/170, 180/190 or 120/130 - the optimal TS moves, but the highest possible score stays at 960. The more 2 coaches differ in (BR minus BBR), the lower their best match is scored and the less likely they are matched. A 190/190 coach can be matched with a higher score to a 150/150 coach than a 150/160 coach can be. That means that people that have equal priorities on winning and bashing are more likely to get paired.
Example: Coach 1 (150/160) TS150 vs Coach 2 (150/150)143 - score 913
The best possible match of a 150/175 coach against coach 2 has a 909 score.
Hope that clears things up about the influence of BBR. |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 17:56 |
|
I just don't understand why that BR thing is so badly perceived. Actually, I thought about what purplechest just said. No ranking affecting the formula just smells more like Ranked no?
In this case, blackbox is the ultimate competitive league possible. It's kinda an improved ladder.
I admit it's not the same as just a match making feature.
Which also means that Blackbox would be THE LEAGUE to display your abilities to play. Metagaming would be reduced. By bringing every team at a 50% chances theorical, once you reach your real ability, you end up winning 1 game out of 2.
This means that in the long run, every team is around 50% win percentage. However, if you are a BR 170 coach, then you are that good. And not the last amazon noob-picker.
On an other hand, I see why the other way round is fun. The other way mean: "have fun playing without any meta-picking headache". |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 18:06 |
|
In [R] CR affects both the matchmaking (though only few people admit it that they decline games because of too high CR) and the CR adjustment after each game (which makes sense). So the current incarnation smells more like Ranked to use your words.
[B] only based on TS would be more competitive, because everyone starts on the same level teamwise when entering a game. That way the 2 things that determine the outcome of a game are coaching skill and luck. Luck evens out over time, leaving only one factor.
Another thing, why TS-only is better for a competitive league:
Imagine a coach that has no interest in high BR, but enjoys fouling (yes.. it sounds wierd, but just imagine). In a BR-matched scenario he will get a TS advantage, even though he can play better - he just didn`t choose to in former matches. This coach now can easily influence BR as he sees it fit, by beating higher BR coaches that are better, but not by such a great margin as the scheduler thinks based on BR. Wouldn`t it be frustrating to consistenly lose against a play that isn`t better than you, but just trashes his BR enough so he gets enough advantage to beat you? |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 18:23 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | Another thing, why TS-only is better for a competitive league:
Imagine a coach that has no interest in high BR, but enjoys fouling (yes.. it sounds wierd, but just imagine). In a BR-matched scenario he will get a TS advantage, even though he can play better - he just didn`t choose to in former matches. This coach now can easily influence BR as he sees it fit, by beating higher BR coaches that are better, but not by such a great margin as the scheduler thinks based on BR. Wouldn`t it be frustrating to consistenly lose against a play that isn`t better than you, but just trashes his BR enough so he gets enough advantage to beat you? |
Would not the same logic you stated above regarding BBR, apply here? i.e. while it's true someone would get a TS handicap out of a low BR, he would be less likely to be paired against a higher BR coach? |
_________________
\x/es |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 18:34 |
|
No. If two coaches are 30 BR points apart and have an identical bash factor (bash factor = BBR - BR), then those 2 coaches are just as likely to be matched as coaches with identical BR and BBR - the only difference is the TS difference of the teams that gets scheduled. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 18:50 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | No. If two coaches are 30 BR points apart and have an identical bash factor (bash factor = BBR - BR), then those 2 coaches are just as likely to be matched as coaches with identical BR and BBR - the only difference is the TS difference of the teams that gets scheduled. |
Sorry, not seeing this.
For coaches with idenditcal BR/BBR the best possible match will be even-TS and a score of 1000, correct?
But, take 2 coaches with BR/BBR of 180/150 and 150/150. Their best match will be a TS handicap of 24 with a score of ~896. (assuming TS of 150 for the 1st coach; score doesn't change significantly for different TS). |
_________________
\x/es |
|
RealMadns
Joined: Jan 16, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 18:57 |
|
| oryx wrote: | | ... I think we can all agree that no amount of refinement on the part of the br/bbr system is going to create a system in which a coaches mettle, skill, and wit are accurately measured. Only a system based on TS, TR, or some other neutral factor can fulfill that role... |
I think that this is a common misunderstanding of how the sheduler works, and a reason for some of the hostility aginst it.
A system that uses BR to strive towards 50/50 games is the most refined way of 'testing coaches mettle' because when this system is stabilized the BR will be the exact unpolluted measure of your skill...
A sytem that uses only TS to pair games, and win% to measure skill, is polluted by the fact that you might get lucky and get your high win% by drawing mainly weaker coaches.
"Look, i got a 95 win%.. im the greatest bb-coach in the world!!!"
"yeah, but 25 of your wins are against RealMadns... it hardly counts" |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 18:59 |
|
| westerner wrote: | | CircularLogic wrote: | | No. If two coaches are 30 BR points apart and have an identical bash factor (bash factor = BBR - BR), then those 2 coaches are just as likely to be matched as coaches with identical BR and BBR - the only difference is the TS difference of the teams that gets scheduled. |
Sorry, not seeing this.
For coaches with idenditcal BR/BBR the best possible match will be even-TS and a score of 1000, correct?
But, take 2 coaches with BR/BBR of 180/150 and 150/150. Their best match will be a TS handicap of 24 with a score of ~896. (assuming TS of 150 for the 1st coach; score doesn't change significantly for different TS). |
Yes, but you can still pair a 180/180 coach with a 150/150 coach and get more than 998. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
