CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
 Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 17:29 |
 
|
Fallen00 -- they are not totals the are averages. And they don`t look fine to me.
And if you don`t believe it, check the stats for norse: 2 games, -15 TR and -6 TS.
Now look at the 2 games:
-6 TR -5TS http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=2416579
-23 TR -6TS http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=2420273
So.. total or average?
Edit:
That`s why I posted the HC in brackets.
For you, the TS dif after HCs:
Undead -15
Undead -11
Undead -5
Chaos -21
Orc -13
Woodies -5
Orc -9
Chaos -9
Orc -14
average over the last 9 games: -11.3 TS disadvantage after handicaps. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 17:33 |
|
| Fallen00 wrote: | | Jan -- those are not averages they are totals. |
No, they areaverages.
And who's whining? I'm just asking for something that I think would offer a different playing experience we currently lack on Fumbbl.
Blackbox as it is now has many traits in common with Ranked in my opinion, because basically reproduces (automating it) the same mental pattern a coach does when defining the matchups terms in R.
We don't need a R quickgame carbon-copy. We need a random pairing division.
And on a personal note: this whole "stop whining" approach is really childish and uncalled for. This thread has gone on topic for 10 pages and 1 month, with many people signing it and/or proposing changes and add-ons to my original idea.
Posting just to say we are all whiners who cannot stand a simple little ts mismatch is poor behaviour even for an internet forum. |
_________________
Last edited by JanMattys on %b %29, %2008 - %17:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
Fallen00
Joined: Oct 16, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 17:34 |
|
Do you guys have any new teams? I see those teams were from the early days of Blackbox. Make new teams and compare now. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 17:37 |
|
| Fallen00 wrote: | | Do you guys have any new teams? I see those teams were from the early days of Blackbox. Make new teams and compare now. |
1- Reading a thread from the beginning to the end before attacking the idea in it is just good sense.
2- I (and others) are against the principle that coach skills should be a factor in the pairing. Synn got it right: it should just be the LAST factor in deciding a pairing, and not a factor to be processed at the same time as TS. So it's a matter of principle. Who cares about single teams cases. I posted them just because Odi asked. |
_________________
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 17:40 |
|
Why are new teams gonna differ? Since the last change in the scheduler, the orcs have played 5 games with an average disadvantage of 10 TS after handicaps. So why should it be different out of the sudden? |
|
|
Joni
Joined: Dec 26, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 18:12 |
|
/signed
Considering the CR is not nesessearily bad, but it definitely should be the last thing done. Blackbox is (as written, when creating a blackbox team) for experienced coaches.
And being a bad player, facing good players automatically means that you are gonna improve, since regarding TS only means fair matches that the coach itself loses and not his team. It is much harder to make up excuses if it really is the coaches own fault to lose, and not because his opponent simply had a better team, which will automatically lead him to recognise his own mistakes. |
|
|
MadTias
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 18:48 |
|
|
Fallen00
Joined: Oct 16, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 18:50 |
|
After looking at many 170+ CR coachs blackbox team, I came to the conclusion that this issue is pretty dellusional . In the teams I surveyed, I didnt see any effect of Coach rating on games. Most of the 170+ CR blackbox teams I looked at, they had an average TS advantage
Games are pretty fair.
So please tell me -- how fair would a game be if someones hidden rating is 140 playing someones that is 190? The scheduler is here to avoid that and you want to remove this?
you want random games that feels like cherrypicking, instead of playing poeple of your own skill level most of the time? |
|
|
Focus
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 18:56 |
|
/signed |
_________________
Supporting dwarf and orc coaches in their struggle to be recognised as equals. Down with the prince of lies BillBrasky!  |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 19:05 |
|
| Fallen00 wrote: | After looking at many 170+ CR coachs blackbox team, I came to the conclusion that this issue is pretty dellusional . In the teams I surveyed, I didnt see any effect of Coach rating on games. Most of the 170+ CR blackbox teams I looked at, they had an average TS advantage
Games are pretty fair.
So please tell me -- how fair would a game be if someones hidden rating is 140 playing someones that is 190? The scheduler is here to avoid that and you want to remove this?
you want random games that feels like cherrypicking, instead of playing poeple of your own skill level most of the time? |
I don't want fair games. I want fair matches.
With even teams, "me vs Purplegoo" is not an even game. But that's exactly the point... why in hell should I face good coaches with a better team in order to have the misguided impression that I can put up a fight against them? I want to play better coaches on even terms, and if they kick my ass in the process, well they deserve it because they are better than me. That's the only way to improve and learning to lose to better coaches is a fundamental part of the learning process. Which is called humility.
And a CR 140 coach who isn't willing to test himself against a CR 190 coach on even ground (read: even teams) should be playing DivR, because he is not ready (yet) for a truely random blackbox system. If you want a random pairing division where a rating system makes up for your lack of skill, then you're asking for a quickgame feature that should be added to R, and not to the purely competitive environment that Blackbox should be. (again: this has been said multiple times in this thread, which you seem to have difficulty reading, you lazy man).
 |
_________________
|
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 19:13 |
|
I think the box should be balanced by TS only and not by BR or BBR. I haven't looked at any data, i am talking about the concept. |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 19:15 |
|
| Fallen00 wrote: | | After looking at many 170+ CR coachs blackbox team, I came to the conclusion that this issue is pretty dellusional . In the teams I surveyed, I didnt see any effect of Coach rating on games. Most of the 170+ CR blackbox teams I looked at, they had an average TS advantage |
So.. thing is, that it will take some time until your BR is noticable enough. Everyone starts at the same entry, but alot of regulars have a BR or BBR above this level. That means a coach that starts in [B] will play down at first on average until he reaches his BR level.
Next part, there may be some high CR coaches, that started later and were already aware of the BR thing and took teams that don`t win that much to stay on a reasonable level. Had those high CR coaches good w/t/l ratios?
How about you post the coaches/teams you looked at... |
|
|
spelledaren
Joined: Mar 06, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 19:30 |
|
| Fallen00 wrote: | After looking at many 170+ CR coachs blackbox team, I came to the conclusion that this issue is pretty dellusional . In the teams I surveyed, I didnt see any effect of Coach rating on games. Most of the 170+ CR blackbox teams I looked at, they had an average TS advantage
Games are pretty fair.
So please tell me -- how fair would a game be if someones hidden rating is 140 playing someones that is 190? The scheduler is here to avoid that and you want to remove this?
you want random games that feels like cherrypicking, instead of playing poeple of your own skill level most of the time? |
I think you misunderstand. The box does not try to avoid either matching 140 and 190 nor does it match people of similar skill together.
We want games that are on equal teams, right now the box actively gives us games on un-equal terms (game-wise).
What good sides are there really to this function?
There sure are bad sides... |
_________________
FUMBBL! |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 19:56 |
|
Having had a few weeks to digest the box now, I think Jan's post sums up the point perfectly. The problem people are finding isn't physical or numerical, it's idealistic (if that makes any sense). I'll try and explain through my own thinking.
When I want a game in [R], my team(s) that I want to use get whacked on gamefinder, I identify the closest TR/TS match (ignoring CR that I don't place a lot of stock in), and offer the game, the process takes less than 30 seconds (although actually getting a game can of course take a bit longer). I like even teams and a test of coaching. Sometimes, this throws me up against a low CR coach and people raise eyebrows, and sometimes I end up with 10 Woodies against Claw/MB/multi-DP and feel a bit of a mug afterwards, but the point is it's the me Vs. him thing I like in open matches, and to suggest (as I know Jan isn't, but there’s undertones of the point there) that due to Coach X having a big CR he's easily going to win every time just isn't how I find it. If I win, most of the time I've worked hard, as it should be. When I was a sub 140 coach, I think (due to my competitiveness) that if some 180 git had turned my offer down because he thought I'd be an easy win or people would sneer at him in IRC or pull match reports out and mock, I'dve called him an arrogant, cocky sod and resolved to beat him all the harder. I treat every coach with the respect I wanted to be shown, I hope.
So this Blackbox trouble / debate I don't think revolves around TS, BR, BBR, racial diversity, any of it, the fundamental behind it is the philosophy of the thing. If any artificial factor is employed to dictate what games I play other than TS, the philosophy is different to the kind of games I want to play in an open division.
I played [B] for a bit, and to be honest, it ended up not being fun for me. I played a couple of guys that were slow, or dropped, or I knew I'd avoid elsewhere. I played frontloaded guys, I played up in TS a bit, BR / BBR seemed to warp games I was playing, etc, etc, but that isn't what got to me (at least as parts of a combination) - it was just the division's philosophy of throwing all of this together to dictate whom I played wasn’t for me, and that's why I stopped playing.
So I know people already understand that, and it's been said already, and some people really like the ideal that games are going to be made "fair" by a bunch of factors external to TS, but that's just not for me. I'd suggest that's what everyone who signed / started this petition is getting at too, but if BigC wants to create it in this way, just play [R]. If TS being even is your bag, then you're better than the [B] bot at scheduling games. I hoped [B] was just going to be a TS thing, but that's just because that's how I like to find games I suppose.
Anyway, off topic, rambling, I'll shut up! Sign or don't sign, but it's just the way of the thing. There's plenty more divisions in the sea.  |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2008 - 20:12 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | Having had a few weeks to digest the box now, I think Jan's post sums up the point perfectly. The problem people are finding isn't physical or numerical, it's idealistic (if that makes any sense). I'll try and explain through my own thinking.
When I want a game in [R], my team(s) that I want to use get whacked on gamefinder, I identify the closest TR/TS match (ignoring CR that I don't place a lot of stock in), and offer the game, the process takes less than 30 seconds (although actually getting a game can of course take a bit longer). I like even teams and a test of coaching. Sometimes, this throws me up against a low CR coach and people raise eyebrows, and sometimes I end up with 10 Woodies against Claw/MB/multi-DP and feel a bit of a mug afterwards, but the point is it's the me Vs. him thing I like in open matches, and to suggest (as I know Jan isn't, but there’s undertones of the point there) that due to Coach X having a big CR he's easily going to win every time just isn't how I find it. If I win, most of the time I've worked hard, as it should be. When I was a sub 140 coach, I think (due to my competitiveness) that if some 180 git had turned my offer down because he thought I'd be an easy win or people would sneer at him in IRC or pull match reports out and mock, I'dve called him an arrogant, cocky sod and resolved to beat him all the harder. I treat every coach with the respect I wanted to be shown, I hope.
So this Blackbox trouble / debate I don't think revolves around TS, BR, BBR, racial diversity, any of it, the fundamental behind it is the philosophy of the thing. If any artificial factor is employed to dictate what games I play other than TS, the philosophy is different to the kind of games I want to play in an open division.
I played [B] for a bit, and to be honest, it ended up not being fun for me. I played a couple of guys that were slow, or dropped, or I knew I'd avoid elsewhere. I played frontloaded guys, I played up in TS a bit, BR / BBR seemed to warp games I was playing, etc, etc, but that isn't what got to me (at least as parts of a combination) - it was just the division's philosophy of throwing all of this together to dictate whom I played wasn’t for me, and that's why I stopped playing.
So I know people already understand that, and it's been said already, and some people really like the ideal that games are going to be made "fair" by a bunch of factors external to TS, but that's just not for me. I'd suggest that's what everyone who signed / started this petition is getting at too, but if BigC wants to create it in this way, just play [R]. If TS being even is your bag, then you're better than the [B] bot at scheduling games. I hoped [B] was just going to be a TS thing, but that's just because that's how I like to find games I suppose.
Anyway, off topic, rambling, I'll shut up! Sign or don't sign, but it's just the way of the thing. There's plenty more divisions in the sea. |
Thanks for translating my illitterate rambling so far to decent english... 
You hit the nail.
ps: Hellfshes are at 690 games. How about serving them a purplen00b dessert for the 700 milestone? |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
New Gnones vs Old Gn...
Search
