seanh1986
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
|
 Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 02:12 |
 
|
My DEs have played 25 matchs now... about half of those have been playing up Vs. either dwarf or orc who have coachs with CR above 176...
Team Stats
2/2/2 vs. dwarf and 1/3/1 vs. orc
Most of those games were not so fun as they consisted of me doing some crazy stuff in the hope of a stop and realistically getting a tie... but they did allow me to play a full half with 4 players in which I managed to pull off a win... that was pretty sweet. When I get those kinds of match-ups I consider a tie a moral victory... In which case I think I'm doing quite well. Overall I`ve enjoyed the box no matter how many dwarfs they send my way! |
|
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 02:23 |
|
| Eddy wrote: | | But anyway, your two [B] teams are Khemri and Ogres... So, yeah, i understand you're not too receptive. |
I always tend towards bashing teams - just look at the ranked ones. So that's nothing special for BlackBox. They fit my playstyle better, and I do significantly better with that kind of team. As can be seen from my repeated and sucky attempts at playing Dark Elves. 
| Eddy wrote: | | Yeah, i'm doing alright win-wise. That's because i play to win, not to save my players. |
Exactly. BlackBox cares about whether you're likely to win the match. It doesn't particularly care how much of a mauling you're likely to get. Do you think Black Box should schedule you for easier wins if you're likely to take a beating? (In a way, indirectly, it does, since mean casualties are taken into account for matchups, something that I personally dislike.)
And why should it? In Ranked, building huge, bloated teams is something you need for the tourneys. In BlackBox, size matters not. Wins do.
| Eddy wrote: | | Hmmm, it's not about me. It's about suggesting that, maybe, it's not such a good thing that the scheduler doesn't figure in the number of players you have when setting up a game. |
It does, indirectly. There is a TS multiplier that depends on your number of players present compared to the mean AV of the team. If you don't think that this TS calculation reflects the value of the number of players properly, then that's a (perceived) fault in the TS calculations
Again, isn't it completely natural that a Khemri or Halfling team would have significantly more players than you do at the same TS? Not only are your players inherently a lot better and more expensive, they're also likely to have accumulated more skills (Wood Elf linemen are kinda easier to train than Skeletons...)
And finally, perhaps some teams really aren't feasible for a harsh environment like BlackBox? Ideally, all would be equally feasible, but that's not the case in ranked either. A significant part of the races aren't very useful at high-end ranked play such as the Majors. Perhaps some races simply are pretty unoptimized in Black Box. That doesn't mean squishy teams should get special treatment, any more than Gobbos or Ogres get special bonuses in Ranked tourneys to make them competitive. Perhaps Black Box is simply their place to shine - there's no law of nature that says the Elf teams should be the best everywhere. |
_________________
”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 |
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 02:37 |
|
| johan wrote: | | I always tend towards bashing teams - just look at the ranked ones. So that's nothing special for BlackBox. They fit my playstyle better, and I do significantly better with that kind of team. As can be seen from my repeated and sucky attempts at playing Dark Elves. |
Same here. But i also like a little variety. Hence the recent incursions in elfland.
| Quote: | | Exactly. BlackBox cares about whether you're likely to win the match. It doesn't particularly care how much of a mauling you're likely to get. Do you think Black Box should schedule you for easier wins if you're likely to take a beating? (In a way, indirectly, it does, since mean casualties are taken into account for matchups, something that I personally dislike.) |
Well, apparently it schedules Khemri teams for easier games since they have bad results (partly because some newcomers are attracted, partly because some coaches play only for the blood, and partly because they're a tough team to play). But, again, i didn't ask for an easier game. I asked for a game against a team with similar numbers. Against 9 Orcs, you have more space and your blitzes/fouls do more damage. Against 13, even if the total number of SPP is the same, it's much harder.
| Quote: | | And why should it? In Ranked, building huge, bloated teams is something you need for the tourneys. In BlackBox, size matters not. Wins do. |
I'm not talking about building bloated teams here. In fact,i don't like BB after TR200, i find it utterly uninteresting.
When you play in an open environment, after you get a heavy beating, you can play a cool game or two against similarly hurt teams to get back into shape. In the box you can't. So you end up having to retire the team because it's not very funny to play games where you're always undermanned from the beginning, and where you know there's a decent probability you won't have any player left in turn 9.
| Quote: | | It does, indirectly. There is a TS multiplier that depends on your number of players present compared to the mean AV of the team. If you don't think that this TS calculation reflects the value of the number of players properly, then that's a (perceived) fault in the TS calculations |
I believe my first message was about a "problem" in the scheduler.
| Quote: | | Again, isn't it completely natural that a Khemri or Halfling team would have significantly more players than you do at the same TS? Not only are your players inherently a lot better and more expensive, they're also likely to have accumulated more skills (Wood Elf linemen are kinda easier to train than Skeletons...) |
WE linemen may be easier to skill, but not when your team is reduced to a handful of players from the start of the game, that's the point. statistically, if you start undermanned, a brutal team can trade cheap linos with DP for at least one of your expensive but not-much-skilled linos.
Anyway, the point is not debating fouling or high AV vs low AV (i like fouling, i like playing slow/bashy/sturdy teams), it's about pointing out that always playing undermanned is not fun when you know beforehand you're going to get a beating without a chance to play. Moving 4 players a turn for 5 games in a row isn't a lot of fun.
| Quote: | | And finally, perhaps some teams really aren't feasible for a harsh environment like BlackBox? Ideally, all would be equally feasible, but that's not the case in ranked either. A significant part of the races aren't very useful at high-end ranked play such as the Majors. Perhaps some races simply are pretty unoptimized in Black Box. That doesn't mean squishy teams should get special treatment, any more than Gobbos or Ogres get special bonuses in Ranked tourneys to make them competitive. Perhaps Black Box is simply their place to shine - there's no law of nature that says the Elf teams should be the best everywhere. |
I don't want Elf teams to be the best everywhere. I want low-AV teams to be as fun to play as bashy teams. "Fun" to "play". That means actually getting to play them, and not watch the other coach alone on the pitch for a whole half. Otherwise i'd play 4v4 =) |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
fly
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 02:41 |
|
funny and useless topic. pixelhuggers and compensators play bashing teams in blackbox, whatsoever their excuse to do so may be. [durable bashing teams... no, your bad luck doesn't count!] |
_________________
I play for fun. I play to win.
Do you play CPOMB 'cause you can't win otherwise?
No, that's a rhetorical question. |
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 03:05 |
|
| Eddy wrote: | | Well, apparently it schedules Khemri teams for easier games since they have bad results (partly because some newcomers are attracted, partly because some coaches play only for the blood, and partly because they're a tough team to play). |
Yes.
The scheduler hopes that the match-up will result in even odds for winning for either part. If Khemri are hard to win with, they will get scheduled for easier matches, especially against the teams that they have particular difficulties in winning against. This is a feature, not a bug.
Teams that play to slaughter and not to win is a separate (and genuinely complex) issue, although I doubt that there enough players doing it to significantly tilt the calculations.
The "newbie effect" may be real, but again, I'm not so sure it's very big. Anyway, the large majority of it likely goes away post 125 TR.
| Eddy wrote: | | i didn't ask for an easier game. I asked for a game against a team with similar numbers. Against 9 Orcs ... |
If you play 9 Wood Elves vs 9 Orcs, there should be a pretty hefty TS advantage in your favor most of the time, and you should have an excellent chance of winning. Doesn't seem fair to me.
Having a couple of players fewer than the opponent is the price you pay for having significantly better players.
Some teams go for quality, others for quantity.
| Eddy wrote: | | Quote: | | It does, indirectly. There is a TS multiplier that depends on your number of players present compared to the mean AV of the team. If you don't think that this TS calculation reflects the value of the number of players properly, then that's a (perceived) fault in the TS calculations |
I believe my first message was about a "problem" in the scheduler. |
The scheduler matches up teams with similar TS (weighted against some other factors as well). The idea is that (discounting coaching skill) two teams with the same TS should have about equal chances of winning the match (and even more close to this after factoring in how well the races typically perform against each other).
If (big if) being understrength in players doesn't give a sufficiently large TS rebate to account for the lesser numbers (even if the individual players are a lot better), then the TS formula could use an update.
None of this has anything to do with the scheduler itself. It's a TS calculation thing.
| Eddy wrote: | | I don't want Elf teams to be the best everywhere. I want low-AV teams to be as fun to play as bashy teams. |
Khemri are low-AV 
I'm confident a lot of the low-AV teams - like Amazons, Norse, Goblins and Halflings - are excellent in BlackBox.
And if Wood Elves really underperform in BlackBox, their win ratings will start to shift, which will (slowly but surely) help to remedy the situation.
I do think it could be worthwhile - once there is a sufficiently large data-set - to separate team-performance in Ranked from BlackBox, as the environments are very different. |
_________________
”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 |
|
Kryten
Joined: Sep 02, 2003
|
Wood Elves can survive the bashing of the Blackbox environment - Til the Death have been going 41 matches now. I have faced a variety of opponents, but the most popular choices have been orcs, ogres, and dwarves.
I got annihilated and broken in these two matches (with just one recovery match against ogres between them), and was told that it was retirement time. My response to that suggestion cannot be repeated here, but I didn't give up, even when I had 5+ niggled players on the team.
As to your suggestion, TS does take number of players into account in a mild way, but at no point is there a comparison of number of players available for each side. I don't think such a comparison is at all easy, since not all players are created equal. I don't think it's necessary, but I can see your point. |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 11:31 |
|
johan, will you please stop talking to me like i'm some noob who has no clue about BB and you're teaching me how it works, please? I respect your arguments, and i may definitely not be right on this issue. Then again, maybe you're not either. That's the point of discussion, to find out, or at least to think about it.
| johan wrote: | | The scheduler hopes that the match-up will result in even odds for winning for either part. If Khemri are hard to win with, they will get scheduled for easier matches, especially against the teams that they have particular difficulties in winning against. This is a feature, not a bug. |
And my point is that the feature takes it too far, possibly going against the original intent.
Besides, in a discussion, i quite dislike statements like that. I mean, i could easily answer "Khemri get too easy games, it's a bug, not a feature". There, i've proven nothing, and neither have you.
| Quote: | Teams that play to slaughter and not to win is a separate (and genuinely complex) issue, although I doubt that there enough players doing it to significantly tilt the calculations.
The "newbie effect" may be real, but again, I'm not so sure it's very big. Anyway, the large majority of it likely goes away post 125 TR. |
You "doubt" and you're "not so sure". Again, you've played only basher teams, and you don't have solid data. I don't either, but then, it means that my argument at least carries as much weight as yours.
| Quote: | | If you play 9 Wood Elves vs 9 Orcs, there should be a pretty hefty TS advantage in your favor most of the time, and you should have an excellent chance of winning. Doesn't seem fair to me. |
How so? Orcs can have skills too, you know? And, it's crazy, they have good players as well!
| Quote: | | Having a couple of players fewer than the opponent is the price you pay for having significantly better players. |
Again, why am i not playing against a team with a reduced number of good players? The only time it happened was against 6 Ogres, which was a ridiculously imbalanced match-up in my favour. Which goes to show that the difference in number might need to be taken seriously, and not only for low-AV teams.
| Quote: | | None of this has anything to do with the scheduler itself. It's a TS calculation thing. |
First, it has all to go with the scheduler, since it's it that decides how "fair" the games are, also factoring in some other things like BR and BBR.
Second, it's the only environment where TS is used to force games, so i'd say the two are quite linked.
| Quote: | | And if Wood Elves really underperform in BlackBox, their win ratings will start to shift, which will (slowly but surely) help to remedy the situation. |
It's not about the win rating. It's about playing fair and interesting matches. If i can somehow manage to win even though i get trashed and have no players left by the end of the first half (be it due to an incompetent opponent or to sheer luck), i don't think i should be "penalized" into playing another bunch of those boring games. I'm not asking for easier games. I'm asking for games between comparable teams, factoring in that when you cannot field 11 players and your opponent can field 11 and have a bench, then it's an advantage, and this advantage counts even more when the team is loaded with damage-skills (which i'm not criticising, again, i like bashy teams).
@Kryten
congratulations!
Did you find it enjoyable to not finish some of the games for lack of players (i don't mean conceding, i mean ending turn)? How many times have you started a game undermanned against a bashy team and eventually won? |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
rostern
Joined: Jun 12, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 11:41 |
|
| Wotfudboy wrote: | I'm quickly forming the opinion of "if you can't beat them, join them!"... but I'm trying to resist the temptation to make a <yawn> Orc, Khemri, Dwarf team... My woodies retired after winning their first game... my humans are my luckiest in opponents so far, with 27 games played, against 15 different races which is a good variation... but my Chaos Dwarves have played 27 games now... 10 of them against Chaos teams! I've started a norse team now... but I quickly remembered why I don't coach them normally... I might look to make a Dark Elf team.
I just wish people didn't just make all bashy teams and mixed it up a little... |
I got 3 times in row
orc's chaos orc's who had 3 dp's so after that i gave up the idea playing with woodies and joined to orc's and chaos ): |
|
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 11:55 |
|
| Eddy wrote: | | johan, will you please stop talking to me like i'm some noob who has no clue about BB and you're teaching me how it works, please? I respect your arguments, and i may definitely not be right on this issue. Then again, maybe you're not either. That's the point of discussion, to find out, or at least to think about it. |
Well, discussion is very good, and opinions need to be respected. So here's mine.
You're WRONG
Why? for all the counter arguments that have been told 1000 times before on this forum. Bashers Vs agility teams. The age old argument.
And all this carry on about 'balanced' matches....Is there EVER a fully balanced match in BB? That would require each coach to roll exactly the same dice. with exactly the same teams + players.
that sounds like an exciting game..... |
_________________
 |
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 11:59 |
|
| Calcium wrote: | Well, discussion is very good, and opinions need to be respected. So here's mine.
You're WRONG |
Gratz. you must be very proud of the e-point you scored for being able to use... BOLD FORMATTING!!!
So great.
| Quote: | | Why? for all the counter arguments that have been told 1000 times before on this forum. Bashers Vs agility teams. The age old argument. |
So you're answering to a new division using new ways of forcing match-ups using a non-official and constantly evolving rating system by an "age-old argument"? Yeah, i can totally see your logic there.
| Quote: | And all this carry on about 'balanced' matches....Is there EVER a fully balanced match in BB? That would require each coach to roll exactly the same dice. with exactly the same teams + players.
that sounds like an exciting game..... |
Yeah you're right. So why bother with TS at all? I mean, let's just enter the box and randomly play against another opponent, and who cares about the TS and even the TR?
that sounds like an exciting game..... |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 12:03 |
|
Some coaches cry about teams/strength/DP's/blodge etc....
Some of us just throw teams in and play. I suppose it depends on how much you love your pixels. What you are doing, along with lots of other coaches on here, is trying to change the structure of the game to give yourself an edge. Well, guess what? The rules are set. And no amount of pointless debate in the forum is going to change that. Play in the box or don't. But very soon everyone is going to get tired of all these rehashed arguments from coaches that can't take a hit.
*The TS is a fumbbl/Christer invention. Not mine. I'd happily play without TS. And I'd also happily play ANY TR. |
_________________
|
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 12:08 |
|
| Calcium wrote: | Some coaches cry about teams/strength/DP's/blodge etc....
Some of us just throw teams in and play. I suppose it depends on how much you love your pixels. What you are doing, along with lots of other coaches on here, is trying to change the structure of the game to give yourself an edge. Well, guess what? The rules are set. And no amount of pointless debate in the forum is going to change that. Play in the box or don't. But very soon everyone os going to get tired of all these rehashed arguments from coaches that can't take a hit. |
Oh yeah, you know me so well, M. Psychanalysis =/
The rules are set, and yet the TS formula is being tweaked, and the Box is even more, since it's in Alpha stage.
But apart from that, yeah, you're completely right.
What about the coaches who cry in the forums against people suggesting changes based on their game experience, and don't even bother discussing or countering arguments, but merely troll? Man, those really suck.
| Quote: |
*The TS is a fumbbl/Christer invention. Not mine. I'd happily play without TS. And I'd also happily play ANY TR. |
Then don't play here if the rules don't suit you. |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou
Last edited by Eddy on %b %14, %2008 - %12:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 12:08 |
|
There are two important points:
- handicaps and the scheduler need to be very very carefully thought through, they are very nearly spot on but not quite there yet IMO... perhaps there is a good way of determining how much handicaps are worth according to TR/TS or number of players or something.
- the TS formula overestimates the worth of skilled teams that drop below 11 players. This probably needs addressing at some point but needs to be part of a well thought through re-write of the TS formula, not a hasty stab in the dark.
However, there is no problem with the agility vs bash balance of the box (except that getting 15 dorfs in a row is dull). Its just that agility teams tend to suffer from the above problems more often than bash teams although bash really do suffer when it actally happens to them. |
_________________
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." |
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 12:15 |
|
I just didn't think you were right Eddy.
And it seems that your experience in the box is not a good one. I have found it quite balanced, bearing in mind that I took on Loved by Elephants/fanboys with my humans 3 times on the bounce recently! Those games were bloody good fun! Gotta agree with silly tho, although I would say constant Orc games is dull.
I do think a good spread of teams would help the box long term, but most coaches play their favourite teams. I know I am. Some coaches play teams built to survive/thrive in a division like this, despite having preferred teams. Isn't that right Rostern? |
_________________
|
|
spelledaren
Joined: Mar 06, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2008 - 12:26 |
|
Fail! |
_________________
FUMBBL! |
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
