38 coaches online • Server time: 15:47
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Old Wo...goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post ramchop takes on the...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
spelledaren



Joined: Mar 06, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 07:38 Reply with quote Back to top

Snorri wrote:
I'm inclined to think along the lines of Haxtor here - wondering really whether there's any decent motivation for this.

/.../

Which leads back to the implication that it means good players will get more easy games. Sorry, I can't see this application as resulting in anything other than this. If you wanted something different than R, surely there's got to be better (more competitive) options than that.

If you really want a hardcore division where only skills matter - why not have a visible BR rating and revel in the fact that you are at the top of the BR pyramid, consistently winning against the best coaches. That certainly would be alot more skillful than playing more than 60% of your games against TR130 coaches on a level playing field.


Yeah, this will give better coaches easier games and bad coaches harder games (compared to now). But it will give out even games based on game terms only instead, something that does not happen now.

The current system strives for unequal games, to make up for the fact that some coaches are better than others.
Equal games seems preferable to me.

_________________
FUMBBL!
Ehlers



Joined: Jun 26, 2006

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 08:05 Reply with quote Back to top

@koadah & @Haxtor
Blackbox is random parring div. So lets take tennis and real life. So at some point a rank 1000 tennis would play against agissi because of the random parring. So in order to get a fair match, then we have to handicap Agissi. So lets get him a chain around his feets and 10cm tennis racket or something like this. Add your own handicaps.
If I am to play Agissi, then I surely dont want him to have a chain around his feets and a 10cm tennis racket. The outcome would be pretty sure to my favour of winning over Agissi.
If I play a high rank coach, then I want it to be on equal terms. I want to test my skillz against his. If possible then two identical teams meet, and lets see if the high rank coaches can outperform me with the same players as his propersal. I dont want to have my uber killer team being parred against a high rank decent team that just looking at TS&TR would destroy his team. Where is the fun in that? How would I even be able to make a BLOG and tell everyone how I destroyed his team. I mean that is just equal to picking. Now it is just low rank coaches that got to pick high level coaches.

I want to meet strong coaches on even grounds and I want to show they are not that good again. If I just get to odd matches, then I will return to R. I will dodge those Khemri teams because I hate them to the core. I will keep on trying to find fair games, but might dodge too heavily claw, razor, DP teams. I would challenge an elf team before dorfs, orcs, etc., because elfs do not hit that hard again if the coach play passing with them, witch many do.
In B, these minor bad habits of mine are not present. Equal matching, better coach leave the pitch with a win.
Draxus



Joined: Nov 14, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 08:11 Reply with quote Back to top

Going purely on {TS} does NOT make the W/T/L mean something. In Blood Bowl, for a W/T/L to mean something there must be a gauged quality to those wins. If a coach gets a 100/0/0 against one-hundred of the worst Blood Bowlers ever then the W/T/L is worthless.
spelledaren



Joined: Mar 06, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 08:50 Reply with quote Back to top

Draxus wrote:
Going purely on {TS} does NOT make the W/T/L mean something. In Blood Bowl, for a W/T/L to mean something there must be a gauged quality to those wins. If a coach gets a 100/0/0 against one-hundred of the worst Blood Bowlers ever then the W/T/L is worthless.


This is true, but it is highly unlikely to happen in the box. If anywhere, this happens in ranked.

_________________
FUMBBL!
Snorri



Joined: Jun 07, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 09:33 Reply with quote Back to top

Everyone seems so focused on the lopsided matchups, that they're losing sight of the one thing that makes any tournament competitive: good coaches being forced to play good coaches (aka a long term swiss tourney). What is being asked for here is going in the opposite direction.

Now you need BR to work out who the good coaches are, and if the scheduler can ensure matchups between good coaches happen with a higher frequency than lopsided pairings, then its a good *competitive* division.

I think the question is just how to ensure you get matchups between good coaches without the problem of these lopsided matchups that everyone is complaining about.
spelledaren



Joined: Mar 06, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 09:46 Reply with quote Back to top

Snorri wrote:
Everyone seems so focused on the lopsided matchups, that they're losing sight of the one thing that makes any tournament competitive: good coaches being forced to play good coaches (aka a long term swiss tourney). What is being asked for here is going in the opposite direction.

Now you need BR to work out who the good coaches are, and if the scheduler can ensure matchups between good coaches happen with a higher frequency than lopsided pairings, then its a good *competitive* division.

I think the question is just how to ensure you get matchups between good coaches without the problem of these lopsided matchups that everyone is complaining about.



Yes, this would be great. But it can do both that and ignore BR as a part of deciding a decent match up.

_________________
FUMBBL!
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 10:11 Reply with quote Back to top

Snorri wrote:
Just a question, given that availability of the teams A, B, C and D below

1) TS(A) = TS(B), BR(A) = BR(B) - everything equal.
2) TS(A) > TS(B), BR(A) < BR(B) - offsets in both, but suppose the scheduler (in its current form) balances these.


The random factor in the formula will decide which of both cases to take.

And this is the core problem - TS will offset BR. The scheduler doesn`t try to match coaches of the same BR. TS and BR are combined and then just one parameter is compared.

I think most of the signing coaches don`t mind if coaches of same BR are paired, when there are multiple options to make a match. But in the end of a day the TS-dif should average out to 0. In an ideal world the BR dif should do so, too. In the current system, neither does.
JanMattys



Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 10:39 Reply with quote Back to top

Draxus wrote:
Going purely on {TS} does NOT make the W/T/L mean something. In Blood Bowl, for a W/T/L to mean something there must be a gauged quality to those wins. If a coach gets a 100/0/0 against one-hundred of the worst Blood Bowlers ever then the W/T/L is worthless.


This would only happen in a 101 coaches environment where one is great and 100 suck.

DivB would never compare to that. Assuming an even participation in the division, the average CR of the blackboxers would still be 150, and having a 100/0/0 (or even a 10/0/0 in a purely even-teams system) would be something I could respect, and surely a sign of good, if not excellent, coaching skills.

_________________
Image
xcver



Joined: Mar 10, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 11:23 Reply with quote Back to top

/signed

_________________
"Power without perception is virtually useless and therefore of no true value!" - Ryouken - Master of the Hokuto no Ken Martial Arts
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 13:34 Reply with quote Back to top

Ehlers wrote:
@koadah & @Haxtor
Blackbox is random parring div. So lets take tennis and real life. So at some point a rank 1000 tennis would play against agissi because of the random parring. So in order to get a fair match, then we have to handicap Agissi. So lets get him a chain around his feets and 10cm tennis racket or something like this. Add your own handicaps.
If I am to play Agissi, then I surely dont want him to have a chain around his feets and a 10cm tennis racket. The outcome would be pretty sure to my favour of winning over Agissi.
If I play a high rank coach, then I want it to be on equal terms. I want to test my skillz against his. If possible then two identical teams meet, and lets see if the high rank coaches can outperform me with the same players as his propersal. I dont want to have my uber killer team being parred against a high rank decent team that just looking at TS&TR would destroy his team. Where is the fun in that? How would I even be able to make a BLOG and tell everyone how I destroyed his team. I mean that is just equal to picking. Now it is just low rank coaches that got to pick high level coaches.

I want to meet strong coaches on even grounds and I want to show they are not that good again. If I just get to odd matches, then I will return to R. I will dodge those Khemri teams because I hate them to the core. I will keep on trying to find fair games, but might dodge too heavily claw, razor, DP teams. I would challenge an elf team before dorfs, orcs, etc., because elfs do not hit that hard again if the coach play passing with them, witch many do.
In B, these minor bad habits of mine are not present. Equal matching, better coach leave the pitch with a win.


You can play Agassi, Nadal or Federer if you want. Just don't try to kid anyone that it is a competitive match.

You wouldn't win a game. You probably wouldn't even win a point unless they gave it to you.

You wouldn't get anything without a severe Nuffling. Hallucinating umpires, freak gusts of wind, balls knocked off course by birds, lightening strikes the lot.
Then you can go around telling everyone how you beat Agassi and feel proud.Wink

The scheduler could treat everyone over 165 as if they had 165. That would even things out a fair bit.

I still can't see the problem with the stronger coaches mainly playing the stronger coaches.

There will always be TS imbalances. Giving the TS advantage to a much stronger coach just sounds like a total mismatch.

So /NO to TS only Wink

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
Eddy



Joined: Aug 04, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 13:54 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
I still can't see the problem with the stronger coaches mainly playing the stronger coaches.

But it's not the case! That's the point! With the current system, if you're a "good" coach, you will sometimes play a "bad" coach who's coaching a team far better than yours.

This is not a good thing, especially considering the accuracy of TS as it is now is questionable, and so is the equivalence between TS, handicaps, and BR/BBR.

Quote:
There will always be TS imbalances.

Huh? No, there shouldn't, because that's what a TS is for. If we're happy with imbalances, let's use the retarded TR and not bother with TS.

Quote:
Giving the TS advantage to a much stronger coach just sounds like a total mismatch.

But who said that? No one wants a TS advantage to the stronger coach, we want no TS advantage for anyone. So that it comes down to who's the better coach.

Also, as i've suggested earlier, it is probably rather easy to influence equal-TS pairings so that better players play against themselves. Why doesn't anyone consider that?

_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou
xcver



Joined: Mar 10, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 14:07 Reply with quote Back to top

we even could use the super simple *justaddthevaluestogether* formula for LRB5 Team Value which is already shown on the team pages...

_________________
"Power without perception is virtually useless and therefore of no true value!" - Ryouken - Master of the Hokuto no Ken Martial Arts
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 14:08 Reply with quote Back to top

Eddy wrote:
koadah wrote:
I still can't see the problem with the stronger coaches mainly playing the stronger coaches.

But it's not the case! That's the point! With the current system, if you're a "good" coach, you will sometimes play a "bad" coach who's coaching a team far better than yours.

This is not a good thing, especially considering the accuracy of TS as it is now is questionable, and so is the equivalence between TS, handicaps, and BR/BBR.


I am not saying that the current system is perfect or even correct. Just that I don't think much of TS only. Smile

Eddy wrote:

Quote:
There will always be TS imbalances.

Huh? No, there shouldn't, because that's what a TS is for. If we're happy with imbalances, let's use the retarded TR and not bother with TS.

Quote:
Giving the TS advantage to a much stronger coach just sounds like a total mismatch.

But who said that? No one wants a TS advantage to the stronger coach, we want no TS advantage for anyone. So that it comes down to who's the better coach.

Also, as i've suggested earlier, it is probably rather easy to influence equal-TS pairings so that better players play against themselves. Why doesn't anyone consider that?


There will not always be enough teams in the box to give an even TS game so someone has to have the advantage.

Obviously no one wants to play at -20 to -30 every match so you can impose caps. You don't have to impose handicaps but you will not always get even TS.

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
Eddy



Joined: Aug 04, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 14:14 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
I am not saying that the current system is perfect or even correct. Just that I don't think much of TS only. Smile

You didn't address my first point, though.
Namely, that currently, if you're good, you don't necessarily play good coaches, you can also play bad coach who have a vastly superior team. So it kinda defeats the argument that good coaches wouldn't play against good coaches in the new system.

Quote:
There will not always be enough teams in the box to give an even TS game so someone has to have the advantage.

Well then that's where the "TS tolerance window" could get in play.

But surely you see the difference in concept between "let's give him a TS handicap because he's good" and "ok, i can't give him a balanced match-up TS-wise, so, for once, i'll give him a TS handicap".

_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou
odi



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 14:21 Reply with quote Back to top

JanMattys wrote:
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&showstats=1&team_id=511316
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&showstats=1&team_id=508400


Well, it seems like everyone is playing up vs chaos, I suppose one of the reasons is, that even though chaos can bash, they dont win so many games. I think just about every team I have have played up vs chaos on average. And they have done well in the process...

And there have been a few with giantic differences and some with smaller difference... But I have just as many wins as I do have losses against them, so I'm fine with that. I'm not looking for easy games, I want my every game to be a bit challanging.
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic