JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
 Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:15 |
 
|
My position is taken on principle:
I don't think we need any kind of coach rating the matching formula for Blackbox pairings. At all.
My idea of the Blackbox is a formula that pairs TEAMS on a strenght basis.
Any formula preventing a CR 180 coach facing a CR 130 coach with EVEN teams is wrong to my idea of Blackbox.
Christer has a different idea of Blackbox, an idea I (and others) don't find very "Blackbox-esque". That's why I ask him to work on his "fair games" project in R, and give us a pure (and true) blackbox system.
Principles should be discussed *FIRST*, that's why this petition exists *now*.
Just add your name and /signed if you want to ask Christer about a TS-only pairings environment. Please use your good sense and only sign if you think you will actually play in such a division.
Thankyou.
JanMattys
/signed |
_________________
Last edited by JanMattys on %b %19, %2008 - %16:%Nov; edited 2 times in total |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:16 |
|
|
Emphasy
Joined: Jun 14, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:24 |
|
|
DonTomaso
Joined: Feb 20, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:25 |
|
/signed |
_________________
====================================
Be careful, my common sense is tingling! |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:27 |
|
More separate divisions would dilute the player base of each, and possibly risk one becoming so small as to be unviable.
Rather than a petition for a new environment, why not put up a poll asking whether people would like Coach Ranking to be a factor or not in the existing Blackbox? Then abide by the decision of the majority in the interests of avoiding a fragmentation of divisions. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:31 |
|
| pac wrote: | More separate divisions would dilute the player base of each, and possibly risk one becoming so small as to be unviable.
Rather than a petition for a new environment, why not put up a poll asking whether people would like Coach Ranking to be a factor or not in the existing Blackbox? Then abide by the decision of the majority in the interests of avoiding a fragmentation of divisions. |
Christer has already expressed the interest in creating a quickgame feature based on even games (including ts, cr (or br) and the rest of the stuff. I counter-suggested that he didn't compromise with two good ideas, so:
1- Create a quickgame feature in R working as it is working now (or even giving CR even more weight on the formula, if the aim is to give fair games)
2- Create a Blackbox that can TRUELY be a blackbox, i.e. based only on TS.
This petition is for 2... even if I think it would be nice not to waste all the precious work Christer has done with Blackbox Alpha, and I strongly recommend point 1 too. But it won't create problems with the players' base:
type 1 coaches are R dudes.
type 2 coaches are B dudes.
ps: also, you can already find the poll here: http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=14821&highlight= |
_________________
|
|
Paragon
Joined: Jun 12, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:40 |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:42 |
|
/signed.
Although how it works now is still cool. |
_________________
 |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:44 |
|
Well, if you've already established that weight of opinion (atm, 100 votes in favour of no BR influence vs 40 against), this petition does seem rather redundant. 
Your comment from that thread:
| Quote: | | ps: also it's quite important the weight it has in the equation... the more it is, the less likely I am to accept it as a good thing. |
Christer has noted that the very purpose of this alpha phase is to assess the relative weights of the different factors (BR/TS/BBR/etc). Why all the moves for radical change before the system has had a chance to bed in? |
|
|
Enar
Joined: Mar 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:47 |
|
I'd prefered if there was options here, but I guess that is not the point of the thread. This will not show who does not sign (as a poll with Yes/No/Pie would), so it really does not give a good idea about the userbases' view.
Sorry for the hi-jack.. :/ |
|
|
MPC
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:53 |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:53 |
|
| pac wrote: |
Well, if you've already established that weight of opinion (atm, 100 votes in favour of no BR influence vs 40 against), this petition does seem rather redundant. |
It's not reduntant. For example, I voted "No, but I will play regardless". I won't quit B (which is just the best thing Fumbbl ever offered to me so far) no matter what the decision of Christer is, but I still feel like I want to fight for a ts-only pairing, because it's worth it. A TS-only pairing for me would be a DREAM come true.
Also, please note that I have proposed Christer an alternate idea, and didn't pose quitting threats (threats he would shrug his shoulders at, anyway).
Christer has already stated in another thread that to him Blackbox is a compromise between random pairing and fair games. I don't think Compromise is a good choice, when we can have both. Fair games in R, and fair matches in B.
| pac wrote: | Your comment from that thread:
| Quote: | | ps: also it's quite important the weight it has in the equation... the more it is, the less likely I am to accept it as a good thing. |
Christer has noted that the very purpose of this alpha phase is to assess the relative weights of the different factors (BR/TS/BBR/etc). Why all the moves for radical change before the system has had a chance to bed in? |
Because Christer seems to be willing to tweak the formula but NOT to get rid of the principal elements, i.e. ts AND br (in its various forms).
This petition is about offering Christer the point of view that including ANY kind of BR is conceptually wrong to us, no matter what's the math and weight behind it.
I also want to add that this petition is not a way to force Christer (historically, he's never let anyone force him into a decision he didn't like, and rightly so), but a very polite way to make know to the site owner that a consistent part of well known players and newcomers alike would like to compete on equal terms and just test their skill against each other.
If you don't want to sign, why question the right for this petition to be made? I don't think it's futile. And I don't know if it'll be useful or not. Just let it live. |
_________________
|
|
PhrollikK
Joined: Nov 04, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:14 |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:19 |
|
| PhrollikK wrote: | | I won't sign it on the principle that I think the TS is wrong. Other than that I wouldn't mind. But isn't this a way of making it more like Ranked? |
TS is the best indicator we've got about a team real strenght.
As soon as we can agree on using it for matchups, we can work on making it more and more accurate.
It's not like we lack data, or mathematicians, or bloodbowl experts to do that. |
_________________
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:20 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | | If you don't want to sign, why question the right for this petition to be made? |
I'm not questioning the right. Please don't suggest that I would do that. I hope I am consistent in supporting people's freedom to post both seriously and frivolously on any subject (as long as it is suitable for the relevant forum). To ask why someone feels compelled to do something is not the same as wanting to prevent them.
I just don't understand the reasoning behind all these - in my opinion - knee-jerk responses. First Circ's comments about roster mix issues in [B] - when the data to support his argument simply does not and cannot exist yet - now your push for TS-only match-ups - when any final decision on the weights of different factors is still very much pending.
In other words, these are all issues which would be better addressed a few weeks or months down the line when all bugs have been ironed out and the whole system has become well-established.
I cannot and would not wish to stop you from debating and proposing, but my recommendation would still be: enjoy the present system (which is still very, very new) for a while; see how it beds down and how things pan out; then put forward new proposals based on that deeper experience.
Above all, the reason to wait is pragmatic for achieving your stated goals. Waiting gives you more time to gather support and evidence in favour of what you'd like to see, and to make a more persuasive, well-argued case when the time comes. Look at your top post right now. It's not making a case at all. It assumes everyone already knows about and understands the issue you're talking about. This excludes all the people who aren't fully informed (some of whom might well back you if they were!). In other words, at the moment, a thread like this can easily get lost in all the general hubbub around the new toy. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
