15 coaches online • Server time: 07:51
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
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 14:26 Reply with quote Back to top

Eddy wrote:
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".



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


Quote:
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 - 14:29 Reply with quote Back to top

I've read your posts. you are not answering my points. If you're not willing to do that, please save us all some time and don't re-quote something you've already said, please Wink

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



Joined: Jun 26, 2006

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 14:40 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
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.


If Agassi was giving a 10cm tennis racket and a chain on his feet in order for the match to be "competitive", then yes I would win.
If a much stronger TS team with a low ranking coach take on a weaker TS team with a high ranking coach, then that match would not be fair at all.

I wont mind that equal BR coaches get parried with equal teams more often then playing 15 BR down or up (CR or what ever rating).
And beside a rating might not mean anything at all, because you can lose on purpose in the current system and therefore lower your rating.
So lets take 2 high skilled coaches.
A Coach metagame and therefore make sure of he has a low Rating (has been covered in more threads on how you could do it)
B Coach wants to win every game and not do this trick.
Now A coach and B coach gets parried, but because of their different in BR, this also affect which teams that meet. And therefore Coach A team get an advantage over Coach B teams.
Is this fair? Not at all.
PurpleChest



Joined: Oct 25, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 16:11
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

piffle to all the endless analogies.

BB isnt tennis, or football, or tiddlewinks, or darts, or synchronised underwater horse snaffling.

Now: We have R.
In R you can get instant random games, if you like.
In R you can cherrypick if you like.
In R you can adjust your offers and acceptances based on CR if you like.
In R you can build solely to team kill if you like.

R rocks, cos in R you can play pretty much as you wish.

I still wish for the one thing in R i dont have. the ability to, on a game by game basis, to be given an instant random balanced (by TR/ts but not CR) game. I think this would be a cool addition.

Then if you wanted to build a team based on solely random matchups you could, but you would also have the dip in and out option. It would be very R, to me, in feel. Creating options but not limits and also thin the 'i just want a game now' crown out of B, where no one seems to want them.

That leaves B. B isnt supposed to be R, and all seem to agree it should keep the purity of a solely random match up division. Cool.

But there are 2 clear schools of thought as to what B should be, and should be trying to achieve. And three types of people playing. Also these 2 aims and 3 types are not compatible.

The 'play-now' crowd just want a game. it is my belief they should be, and could be, catered for in R. They dont really have an agenda or manifesto for the new division. I think people that want an instant game should be able to get one with some form of the tool that is the B concept but that l;eavin them in with the other 2 types dilutes the B concept for BOTH of the actual manifesto types.


The '50%ers' want a division where in any given game on any given day they have a 50% chance of winning, as determined by the formula, taking everything possible into account. This is currently Christers stated aim for B, and i genuinely can see the advantages of such a division (though it appeals to me not at all). i think it is a great place to step to after A, offering a lot of protection for the more limited coaches and also an instant 'tough' challenge to everyone. On every thread discussing B it seems clear there is enough of a market for this concept for it to exist and have a division that goves this exact game type to those that want it.

The 'Measurers' want a division where the instant random match ups use every factor other than the coach and therefore, in their opinion, would give a true test of coaching over time and lead to an accurate depiction of a coaches ability (i am not going to go on at length about the mile wide holes in that thesis). Again every B thread generates a noticable chunk of folk that wish solely for this. Wether the facts back up their dislike of the 50%ers (and christers) stated aim is not teribly relevant as it seems the fact it IS a stated aim is enough to deter and upset many. Where is the harm in them having this available to them in a pure form. Call it C division maybe, for competitive.

in summary. B cannot satisfy both groupings at the same time, so we need 2 different divisions and possibly alsoa way of getting the 'play-now' crowd ou of both.

_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 16:40 Reply with quote Back to top

Eddy wrote:
I've read your posts. you are not answering my points. If you're not willing to do that, please save us all some time and don't re-quote something you've already said, please Wink


Apologies if it was not obvious enough for you.

Eddy wrote:
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.


Your point concerns the current system which I am NOT saying is the best system. Obviously in a pure TS system strong coaches would meet strong coaches. How often would depend on the ratio of strong to weak coaches in the box.

You can restrict the 'vastly superior team' issue with a hard cap. Which Christer already does.
You can change the cap.
You can treat all 165+ BR as if they were 165 BR.
You can choose to only look at BR after matching by TS
You can decide that where there is a TS advantage and a choice, the Stronger coach usually does not get the advantage.

Those points have been discussed and DO involve using BR. So I say no to TS only.

My Idea is that every game should be a tough/even game (rather than even match by TS) for both coaches.

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



Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 16:40 Reply with quote Back to top

Excellent post Purplechest.

Only one question:
Why can't 50%ers be satisfied with the current bot run in R ?
That would cut the need for a third division:

- Gamefinder R = as it is now, the place for play-now folk.

- Bot R = R games using the current bot. 50% win chance for everyone. The place for 50%ers. Call it Quickgame Feature, if you like.

- DivB with a new formula based on teams = the place for the Measurers.

Why isn't this the perfect solution that makes everyone happy?

_________________
Image
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 16:43 Reply with quote Back to top

PurpleChest wrote:
...


Fine, as long as there are enough punters to satisfy both groups. Otherwise it is just horrible matchups due to not enough teams in the box.

I do enjoy the silly analogies though Wink

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



Joined: Oct 25, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 16:47
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

Because that doesnt cater for the 'quick gamers' that dont want CR used to weigh the game. in my view R should do that. IF the people that want 'dip in and out' R games DO want it weighted by CR, maybe R needs to find a way of offering both 'dip and out' 50% games and 'CR irrelavant' games. But im confident this niche would settle for either.

It also doesnt give the 50%ers a division where ALL teams have been generated using ALL games as random 50% games. which is another thing they seem to mostly want.

We cant keep subdividing for ever, so i picked merely the greates and seemingly most intractable division and proposed we divide.

Importantly both the 'measurers' and the '50%ers' seem to want pure divisions for their choice of B ethic. Why not let tham have it?

_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone
JanMattys



Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 30, 2008 - 16:58 Reply with quote Back to top

PurpleChest wrote:
Because that doesnt cater for the 'quick gamers' that dont want CR used to weigh the game. in my view R should do that. IF the people that want 'dip in and out' R games DO want it weighted by CR, maybe R needs to find a way of offering both 'dip and out' 50% games and 'CR irrelavant' games. But im confident this niche would settle for either.

It also doesnt give the 50%ers a division where ALL teams have been generated using ALL games as random 50% games. which is another thing they seem to mostly want.

We cant keep subdividing for ever, so i picked merely the greates and seemingly most intractable division and proposed we divide.

Importantly both the 'measurers' and the '50%ers' seem to want pure divisions for their choice of B ethic. Why not let tham have it?


Your answer makes sense.
The problem is that I don't think there's enough players-base to have three different (and healthy) divisions. Especially for players from different timezones, like evening/night US players.
But think only Christer has enough data to tell us about the survival chances of a three-divisions environment.

_________________
Image
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 25, 2009 - 17:55 Reply with quote Back to top

I think this can be closed now.
johan



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 25, 2009 - 18:39 Reply with quote Back to top

Yep, outstanding.

_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”

—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess
Plorg



Joined: May 08, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 25, 2009 - 22:37 Reply with quote Back to top

Locking due to scheduler update.
Further discussion can go in State of the box: 2009-01-25
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