FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Joined: Sep 18, 2006

Posted: Dec 14, 2008 - 13:54

Ranked is WAY better to find even matches...look at my teams....my B team gets way better matches more often than my ranked teams do.

better as in in my favor.

westerner

Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Posted: Dec 14, 2008 - 15:51

CircularLogic wrote:

I think the simplest solution would be to place the 15TS hard cap rule before handicaps are factored in.

I'm not convinced that handicaps are currently a significant problem, but I did want to explore your suggestion from the general perspective of closer matchups.

If you tighten the acceptable TS band, you'd have fewer but fairer matchups. Which might encourage coaches to play a range of teams in order to get a match.

_________________
\x/es

Reisender

Joined: Sep 29, 2007

Posted: Dec 14, 2008 - 16:09

CircularLogic wrote:

By hard TS I mean that you are able to translate handicaps into TS in a simple fashion, when you can not. This is due to the huge difference in usefulness of the different handicaps and of every single handicap depending of the context. Virus can be absolutely useless or a gamebreaker. Ironman ranges from minor edge (on a rookie khemri team e.g.) to a gamebreaker (on a ST4 block MB werewolf.. trust me.. that made the game :/)

I think the simplest solution would be to place the 15TS hard cap rule before handicaps are factored in.

Seconded.

recently my dark elves played some orcs, they were way down in TS and received Virus (no nigglers), plamed coin and smelling salts (great for orcs vs no mb elves, isnt it).

JanMattys

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: Dec 14, 2008 - 16:10

Reisender wrote:

CircularLogic wrote:

By hard TS I mean that you are able to translate handicaps into TS in a simple fashion, when you can not. This is due to the huge difference in usefulness of the different handicaps and of every single handicap depending of the context. Virus can be absolutely useless or a gamebreaker. Ironman ranges from minor edge (on a rookie khemri team e.g.) to a gamebreaker (on a ST4 block MB werewolf.. trust me.. that made the game :/)

I think the simplest solution would be to place the 15TS hard cap rule before handicaps are factored in.

Seconded.

recently my dark elves played some orcs, they were way down in TS and received Virus (no nigglers), plamed coin and smelling salts (great for orcs vs no mb elves, isnt it).

palmed coin is great vs elves.

_________________

Reisender

Joined: Sep 29, 2007

Posted: Dec 14, 2008 - 16:34

well you win the kickoff 50% anyway. and it might be okay vs av 7 elves or elves with only 10-12 players. but usually you cant clean pitch of a full blodgy dark elf squad...

SillySod

Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Posted: Dec 14, 2008 - 22:09

CircularLogic wrote:

By hard TS I mean that you are able to translate handicaps into TS in a simple fashion, when you can not. This is due to the huge difference in usefulness of the different handicaps and of every single handicap depending of the context. Virus can be absolutely useless or a gamebreaker. Ironman ranges from minor edge (on a rookie khemri team e.g.) to a gamebreaker (on a ST4 block MB werewolf.. trust me.. that made the game :/)

I think the simplest solution would be to place the 15TS hard cap rule before handicaps are factored in.

That would be horrible. If you thought teams getting beat up often under the current system is bad then just think about it under your proposed system Shocked

Not only are you beat up and mildly over-valued in TS but you also have a high TR and get matched up against a +15TS khemri team.... which then gets three handicaps too.

There isnt a simple solution... the simplest would probably be to slightly underestimate the vamue of handicaps in the TS formula so you encouraged a slightly tighter TR/TS ratio. Completely understimating the value of handicaps by ignoring them for the TS cap isnt the way forward.

_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced."

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Dec 14, 2008 - 22:14

You misunderstood me. I was proposing, that if handicaps aside the TS difference is larger than 15TS, then you don`t play. So if you have 140/140 you cannot play a 160/160 team because the difference before the handicaps are factored in is larger than 15 TS.

spelledaren

Joined: Mar 06, 2004

Posted: Dec 14, 2008 - 22:18

Yes...but what if the teams had 165/120 and 114/135?

That would be legal if the TS cap was before handicaps, but hardly a fair game.

_________________
FUMBBL!

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: Dec 14, 2008 - 22:23

spelledaren wrote:

Yes...but what if the teams had 165/120 and 114/135?

That would be legal if the TS cap was before handicaps, but hardly a fair game.

i second circulars position....

and for that matchup... you are wrong... its a fair matchup.... the ts might be technically higher for the 114/135 team but its ts will be overrated compared to the 165/120 team, that most likley will provide few but very good players

...or let me say it like that... its never going to be a hopeless matchup like the one in the opening post

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Dec 14, 2008 - 23:54

spelledaren wrote:

Yes...but what if the teams had 165/120 and 114/135?

That would be legal if the TS cap was before handicaps, but hardly a fair game.

That would be cut away by the current cap.

vanGorn

Joined: Feb 24, 2004

Posted: Dec 15, 2008 - 21:57

Every matchup is fair. There's often no fifty fifty chance balance concerning the win, but if you calculate the expected outcome and can reach something better, than it was a good performance even if your team became flogged. The reverse might be the case even on an easy walkthrough.

_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.

Mr_Foulscumm

Joined: Mar 05, 2005

Posted: Dec 15, 2008 - 22:08

I hear that once there was this guy who played a game vs this other guy, and he was all like "wtf man! This is sooo unfair!" and the other guy just like "whatever"-d him straight in the face. I just couldn't believe it. And the TS vs all messed up and the DPs where like kicking players. It would have been more fair if the teams could just like play on even term instead of being forced to play when people do stuff like that. You know what I mean? Smile

_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL

nThatch

Joined: Jan 13, 2004

Posted: Jan 03, 2009 - 05:22

u killed it Smile

Ansbach

Joined: Jul 12, 2004

Posted: Jan 03, 2009 - 06:04

Ullakkomorko wrote:

I think the solution CircularLogic suggests seems to be ok, although it can lead to a lot of matches missed matches, especially during slow hours. This would be mitigated by coaches having more than one or two teams.

I think this quote hits the nail on the head!

Reduce the acceptable range of a "fair" matchup as I think most people agree that the range is too wide now, even if it's relatively rare.

Coaches who have trouble getting games will have to compensate by making more teams. Problem solved. More teams, more games - fairer matchups. If you really only want to have one or two teams in the box then you have to accept the fact that it is going to be harder for you to get games - the more teams you have the better chance of getting a fair game. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

karix

Joined: Aug 18, 2003

Posted: Jan 03, 2009 - 06:19

I support CircularLogic's suggestion reguarding the handicaps as well.

Every time I've seen unusual match ups (often when the coach playing the stronger team had a more suitable option), is because of the way the alogirthm values handicaps. Handicaps need to be tweaked in their 'value'.
The easiest example is my 129/110 CDs vs 107/107 Dorf, when I had 110/117 Undead (which was my preferred team as well). Yes, the TS is closer, but the handicap that is given away if its moreleys or I am the greatest reduces TS by at least 10. Equally if its palmed coin it still not as good a match up as the undead.