70 coaches online • Server time: 21:45
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post NBFL Season 32: The ...goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post Secret League Americ...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Haunted



Joined: Jan 14, 2008

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 01:50 Reply with quote Back to top

Please bare with me on this, I am not an English major.

Testing a rule set obliges us to first define what we want that set to accomplish. Without a clear purpose and common goal, any communication and feedback amongst our community will fundamentally be unsound. How can we collect useful data on how well something works if we do not know what it is supposed to do?

Now take the newly implemented Blackbox division. What is the purpose of it? This may seem like a naive question, but indulge me. Take a few moments and ook throughout this particular forum. I contend that there are many divergent opinions on what the division should be. Here are just a few (in generalized form):

1- A system that attempts to create a match that has an equal chance of being won by either coach.

2- A system which attempts to create a match where all MEASUREABLE and non-random factors are as even as possible.

3- A system which attempts to eliminate unfair advantages in long-term team management, otherwise known as "cherry-picking". In order to do this, ALL matches must either be EXACTLY fair, or there must be an equal distribution of advantageous and disadvantageous games for every team.

Now take a look at these. Before we can assess how succesful the current alpha of Blackbox is, we MUST FIRST decide which of these goals it is intended to accomplish. All three of these intentions are fundamentally opposed. That is to say, you can not implement one without necessarily not implementing another.

I propose that we take the time to discuss this as a community and decide-- possibly through a vote, or by the unilateral decision of christer-- which of these roads we wish to take.

With that said, let me take just another second of your time and stand on my soapbox for why I think option 1 as listed above is entirely absurd.

First of all, I posit that there will never be a system created that will ever under any circumstance accomplish a system where all matches have a 50% chance of being won by either side. The real world is too complex and full of outliers to allow for this on a practical basis.

But let's for a moment assume that we COULD make such a system, or one that is close enough. What would we have? Let's take a look at what factors influence a bloodbowl match.

-Coach skill
-Team stats
-Team size
-Team bashiness
-Luck

In this case, our hypothetically perfect system would essentially eliminate the first four factors. We are now left with a system where the EXPRESS intent is to make all games be decided entirely by luck. That does not sound like a very fun system to me. It seems to me that we could all save a lot of time and emotional investment if instead of playing this version of blackbox we all just played Rock, Paper, Scissors with our twelve-year old cousins.

Let the outcome of games be affected by the skill of the coaches! All things being equal, over time the BETTER coach should win, not the LUCKIER coach. But that is just one man's opinion.

Please, share your opinions on this. If nothing else, we need to start a serious guided discussion on what we want this division to accomplish. Otherwise I fear that instead of a wonderful new division, we will very quickly end up with a a system that is merely just slightly better than an alternative for all parties.

P.S. I know that Christer has started a thread about the purpose of the division. But essentially the only actual discussion about the purpose of the division was that it should be "fun". That's not really talking about what the intent of the division should be. It's glossing over the issue.
Synn



Joined: Dec 13, 2004

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 03:02 Reply with quote Back to top

Bashiness should have nothing to do with matches. Making it less likely that agile teams run into killers will make them more powerful in the long term.

__Synn
Manbush



Joined: Nov 08, 2005

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 04:21 Reply with quote Back to top

The only IMPORTANT question is will people play in it and keep it a popular choice for playing bloodbowl on this site? So far, there has been a great deal of positive feedback and many of us are enjoying it. That's all that matters for blackbox or any other division. Active participation.

_________________
Happy is the person who can laugh at himself. He will never cease to be amused

I put the liquor in the same bottle his and mine, and mine was at the bottom, and, sure, I was obliged to drink his to get at mine
skeletor



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 04:50 Reply with quote Back to top

Synn wrote:
Bashiness should have nothing to do with matches. Making it less likely that agile teams run into killers will make them more powerful in the long term.

__Synn


Well Synn, if a skaven team have too play Khemri/orc/ogre/chaos/dwarf 80% of ther games, ther will be no skaven team, they just can´t surive like that!

I guess these 5 races is at least 80% of what´s in B right now.
Kill-Kill



Joined: Nov 22, 2004

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 05:36 Reply with quote Back to top

skeletor wrote:
Synn wrote:
Bashiness should have nothing to do with matches. Making it less likely that agile teams run into killers will make them more powerful in the long term.

__Synn


Well Synn, if a skaven team have too play Khemri/orc/ogre/chaos/dwarf 80% of ther games, ther will be no skaven team, they just can´t surive like that!

I guess these 5 races is at least 80% of what´s in B right now.


I guess you are wrong. Actually, I know you are wrong.

Just for example, there are 5 [B] games in progress right now.

2 Dwarf
2 Skaven
1 Khemri
1 Human
1 Ogre
1 Undead
1 Halfing
1 Vampire

(2+1+1)/10=40%

5/23= 28%

As opposed to Ranked Games right now (9)

2 Wood Elf
2 Norse
3 Necro
1 Human
2 Chaos
1 Khemri
2 Orc
1 Dwarf
1 Halfing
2 Lizardmen
1 Elf

(2+1+2+1)/18= 33%

So, with the admittedly small sample sizes, the number of those 5 teams are very similar in [B] and [R].

_________________
Your words are just bloody fallacy
A house of cards, painted white
Tried to recreate Normandy
But you made up the reasons to fight
PainState



Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 06:12 Reply with quote Back to top

I agree with the original post and what it had to say.

BUT

I will take Christer at face value when he said he wanted another option for people to play and have fun. IMO thats what he set out to do and accomplished it. The Alpha stage is trying to set up parameters for trying to achieve balanced match ups. But its main purpose was to provide what a lot of people wanted. A way to get matches fast and not have to worry about trolling the gamefinder looking for matches AND allowing their inner cherry picker to not take over and refuse the first match up or the team they were matched up with on the gamefinder.

In that regard Black Box is a total success! I stick by my Nihilism post and believe a small percentage want the Box to replace ranked. But now that the discussion is heating up and the conversation has moved towards the middle on how to improve the Box its all about the same old BS that Ranked play has. How to stop guys from meta gaming the syatem. This is not fair and thats not fair. Throw this paramater out and this in. High CR vs low CR. Only TS or a colection of other data. When will it end? never. To many people deep down want to win and having fun is secondary. The box in some peoples mind would give them that "edge" to acoomplish winning and are pushing the system to find that edge.

SO once Christer decides what to do then we either support the Box or we let it sit on the side for the small group of players that will still play.

I am now firmly convinced that one of the original ideas for the "box" to be an "option" for finding games in the ranked game Div was the probally the best soulution now that the debate has begun. BECAUSE all the debates are the same old debates just with a new twist. Its a new Div and not ranked.


So I propose to Christer if he even cares what I have to say. Once Alpha is complete and Beta if there will be such a thing. Then Slag the BOX and move the new Box over to ranked. Not because I hate the BOX because in the end IT DOES NOT MATTER if its another option for Rank gamefinding or another DIV for some coaches to meta game the new system and pump their chests that they "rule" the Box and those chumps over in Ranked are old school and seeing their last days. Everyone who loves the Box and there are many would still have the box to play in but it would just be in the ranked DIV would be the only diffrence.
shadow46x2



Joined: Nov 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 08:31 Reply with quote Back to top

skeletor wrote:
Synn wrote:
Bashiness should have nothing to do with matches. Making it less likely that agile teams run into killers will make them more powerful in the long term.

__Synn


Well Synn, if a skaven team have too play Khemri/orc/ogre/chaos/dwarf 80% of ther games, ther will be no skaven team, they just can´t surive like that!

I guess these 5 races is at least 80% of what´s in B right now.


....hmm...wait wait wait...i can do this....

i guess you're talking about your skaven team that has faced 80% Khemri/orc/ogre/chaos/dwarf....

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&showstats=1&team_id=508195

oh wait....you've only faced one of those teams....granted, twice, but the others were delfs, humans, lizards, undead, and woodies....

or you know...

you could base your comments on fact instead of speculation that is intended to spread FUD...

as of 11/20/08 - 7:58 AM bbtime...

there are 812 active teams in [B] with at least 1 game played...sorted by the total amount of teams per race....

orc 94
dwarf 78
chaos 72
khemri 72
dark elf 50
skaven 45
human 41
ogre 41
wood elf 37
lizardmen 35
undead 35
chaos dwarf 33
high elf 31
norse 25
necromantic 24
nurgle's rotters 21
amazon 20
goblin 17
elf 14
vampire 14
halfling 13

and wow....those 5 races total up 357 of 812 teams....43% of the total teams in the league...

but then again, you also picked out 5 of the most popular "bash" teams....so it's not surprising at all that the % is so high...

but maybe you're talking about games played...

chaos 587
dwarf 557
orc 518
khemri 508
ogre 354
dark elf 269
chaos dwarf 248
human 244
skaven 235
undead 224
wood elf 212
lizardmen 150
nurgle's rotters 143
halfling 140
norse 134
amazon 134
high elf 133
necromantic 121
elf 80
goblin 76
vampire 49

2524 out of 5116 games played by those 5 races...49% of the total games played involve those races....

yep...both well below that 80% ratio you're talking about...

but then again, when you pick 5 of the most popular "bash" races, is it really so hard to expect a lot of matches played between them?...

fact of the matter...there is a high population of those particular races because they are hard to find matches with in ranked, and a lot of coaches have this silly perspective of "oh i can play B and people have no choice but to play me!"....

whether they're playing those races because they genuinely enjoy them, or because of other motives, who knows....

but the problem with your statement really isn't any of the above listed problems, because this massive flood of "bash" that you see, really isn't as bad as you wan to make it out to be...

the real problem is this...

if you feel that there are too many "bash" teams in B....

why are you complaining?

why don't you take the first step in encouraging others to play something other than those teams...

instead of doing exactly what you're railing against?

--j

_________________
origami wrote:
There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet.

ImageImage
Astarael



Joined: Aug 14, 2005

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 08:40 Reply with quote Back to top

Kill-Kill wrote:
Some stats.


ACTIVE TEAMS OF EACH RACE (Played at least 1 game and not retired) AT TIME OF THIS POST

Amazon: 21
Chaos: 72
Chaos Dwarf: 33
Dark Elf: 50
Dwarf: 78
Elf: 14
Goblin: 17
Halfling: 7
High Elf: 31
Human: 41
Khemri: 72
Lizardmen: 35
Necromantic: 24
Norse: 26
Nurgle's Rotters: 21
Ogre: 41
Orc: 93
Skaven: 45
Undead: 35
Vampire: 14
Wood Elf: 37

Hehehe, I was partly through evaluating this and saw shadow's reply Very Happy

_________________
Oh my.
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 08:45 Reply with quote Back to top

So shadow.. you feel that it`s not a significant overrepresentation, when less than 25% of the races in Bloodbowl make more than 40%of the teams and play nearly 50% of the matches?

Sure.. the 80% were exaggeration.. but don`t you think that the racial spread is skewed?
cjohnsto



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 08:57 Reply with quote Back to top

I think it may be skewed slightly but it has to be kept in mind that a lot of the races are niche or novelty races that don't suit a lot of people.

Since I'm diving in to the fray. In general I think it should be harder to progress you teams without winning, bashy or otherwise. But this is a problem for the bloodbowl rules to fix (i.e. D3*10k winnings and +3 for a win, when in long term leagues).
I'm not suggesting Christer should do something like this.
Synn



Joined: Dec 13, 2004

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 09:07 Reply with quote Back to top

Circ:

Don't forget some races are underrepresented due to their inherent "poostabbiness" (elves, flings, vamps, zons).

__Synn
shadow46x2



Joined: Nov 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 12:20 Reply with quote Back to top

CircularLogic wrote:
So shadow.. you feel that it`s not a significant overrepresentation, when less than 25% of the races in Bloodbowl make more than 40%of the teams and play nearly 50% of the matches?

Sure.. the 80% were exaggeration.. but don`t you think that the racial spread is skewed?


for starters, i don't think it's a good idea at all to take the statistics into account positive or negative at this point, due to the system only being up for what, a week now?...i only brought it up to refute yet another false allegation that the system is filled with nothing but bash created to slaughter everything.....because frankly, the argument is getting wore out....

but the problem, that you're referring to is not a black box problem, and it is ludicrous to attribute the problem solely to black box...the problem is with fumbbl as a whole...

i would wager if you did the comparisons, the amount of those teams in question in ranked would probably be fairly representative....

the problem is perspective....in ranked you don't see it as much because you can ignore coaches that play bash teams...in black box you don't have the option of avoiding it....

example?...while it is a small survey, and is not 100% accurate by any means, we can use gamefinder at this moment to have an idea of the representation...

out of the 15 teams on GF at this moment....3 are chaos, 1 is dorf, 1 is ogre, and 2 are orcs...so 6 of 15?...

that's pretty close to that 43% ratio don't you think?...40%?

whether i agree or disagree that is a significant misrepresentation is irrelevant...

what is relevant, is people trying to pin the problem on black box, when the problem isn't the system at all, the problem is the coaches as a whole over the entire site...

--j

ps...it is also very relevant, that a coach, in this case skeletor, should not be criticizing the racial population, when he himself, is guilty of contributing to the problem

_________________
origami wrote:
There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet.

ImageImage
PurpleChest



Joined: Oct 25, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 13:03
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

shadow46x2 wrote:

ps...it is also very relevant, that a coach, in this case skeletor, should not be criticizing the racial population, when he himself, is guilty of contributing to the problem


No it isnt. It is utterly irrelevant. Do you really expect otherwise off coaches that percieve there to be a problem of racial imbalance that makes av9 the default choice? Sure the problem is that despite your messianic fervour you have been unable to presuade people that anything other than an av9, or bashy, teams, is the right choice for them in [B].

In R i play a variety of races (DE, HE, Orc, Chaos, CD, Dorf, Human), though specialising in high str teams often. in [B] i feel i would be insane to play as anything other than av9, based on my experiences there and the experiences related by others.

Surely i can do that and still feel the fact that i didnt feel i had a realistic choice to do otherwise isnt as i would like it to be?

Several times you have said people should not criticise the problem unless they are selflessly attempting to adress it. Surely the fact they arn't is the very essence of the problem? Surely you, and the envirtoment in [B], isnt being persuasive enough that other options are viable.

And surely your endless attempts to stifle debate must be wearing you down as it seems the debate will continue regardless.

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


Last edited by PurpleChest on Nov 20, 2008 - 13:07; edited 1 time in total
Freppa



Joined: Oct 14, 2005

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 13:07 Reply with quote Back to top

i agree with the original post, what fun is there to flip a coin endlessly? this is a conflict game, not a cozy coop game.
arw



Joined: Jan 07, 2007

Post   Posted: Nov 20, 2008 - 13:21 Reply with quote Back to top

It still isn't a coinflip. It's like playing against yourself somehow-
if you are better than your average you still win.
But I agree that "balancing it out" to this degree isn't really desirable.
I do agree too that the balancing should focus on the teams not the coaches.
I don't agree with cutting out BR however since it gives harder games to cheesy teams which win by exploiting the scheduler. BR(BBR) actually reacts to ANY exploit whatsoever as long it leads to a higher probability of winning(bashing).
You might say it even takes into account that Rotters got no Apo (or rather the effects of it).
Only TS? Ogres weren't ever as good as they are now... Confused
What else reacts to that?


Last edited by arw on Nov 20, 2008 - 13:36; edited 3 times in total
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic