| Poll |
| What do you think a fumbbl-HC should be worth (in TS) |
| I haven't read the first post yet and don't know exactly how many / which HC exist, so I can't really say. |
|
16% |
[ 12 ] |
| 1 TS |
|
1% |
[ 1 ] |
| 2 TS |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 3 TS |
|
17% |
[ 13 ] |
| 4 TS |
|
6% |
[ 5 ] |
| 5 TS |
|
42% |
[ 32 ] |
| 6 TS |
|
2% |
[ 2 ] |
| 7 TS |
|
2% |
[ 2 ] |
| 8 TS |
|
2% |
[ 2 ] |
| 9 TS |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 10 TS |
|
8% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 75 |
|
RC
Joined: Sep 22, 2005
|
 Posted:
Dec 30, 2008 - 18:46 |
 
|
Smelling salts, not so good when playing with dwarfs, effing great when playing with norse. |
_________________
"Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar." |
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 30, 2008 - 18:49 |
|
I think multiple handicaps are worth than each individually.
My thought would be:
1 HC: 3 TS
2 HC: 7 TS
3 HC: 12 TS
4 HC: 18 TS
5 HC: 25 TS
Or something like that... |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 30, 2008 - 18:57 |
|
| Fallen00 wrote: | Very unrealistic of you, Janmattys. Do you think everyone will have 5+ blackbox team? the current trend is one per coach. the scheduler would need 20 Coaches to schedule 2-4 matches.
I hope BigC is wiser than you Jan. It would be dreadful to see your system implemented |
1- Err??
2- Read what I write
3- Understand what I write, particularly the part that implies that my suggestion about the handling of handicaps in DivB would NOT affect the pairing system.
4- Think
5- If you refer to my suggestion of +/-5% TS, I'd gladly have less games in a truly random competitive environment than joke ones. We can discuss if the acceptable cut is 5%, 7%, 10% or a fixed number, but my point stands.
and sorry, can't resist:
6- You're a guy coaching 0 rrs mutated chaos exploiting the system. Are you really trying to tell me I'm not helping the DivB cause, while you are? |
_________________
 |
|
TheCetusProject
Joined: May 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 30, 2008 - 19:09 |
|
Handicaps are pointless in [B], they should be turned off.
And since Handicaps are in the Extra Rules of the LRB4, they can be safely ignored without violating LRB4 at all -- it is the discretion of the coaches, and in the case of a league whoever runs the league, as to what Extra Rules are used. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 30, 2008 - 19:42 |
|
| funnyfingers wrote: | I think multiple handicaps are worth than each individually.
My thought would be:
1 HC: 3 TS
2 HC: 7 TS
3 HC: 12 TS
4 HC: 18 TS
5 HC: 25 TS
Or something like that... |
Can you elaborate on that? Do some handicaps get better in combination with others? |
_________________
\x/es |
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 30, 2008 - 19:55 |
|
westerner - Well the idea is that with more handicaps, you are more likely to get the better ones such as morley's and greatest. Those two together are quite good, though combination really wasn't my intention.
TheCetusProject - I think the handicaps are needed in order to provide more matchups. If you take away handicaps, you limit the amount of possible matchups. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 08:15 |
|
| funnyfingers wrote: | westerner - Well the idea is that with more handicaps, you are more likely to get the better ones such as morley's and greatest. Those two together are quite good, though combination really wasn't my intention.
TheCetusProject - I think the handicaps are needed in order to provide more matchups. If you take away handicaps, you limit the amount of possible matchups. |
I can't quite follow your post... ...if you don't think combos make some / single HCs worth more I don't see why you would evaluate each one depending on how many you got (afterall simple addition accounts for the fact that 2 HC > 1 HC  )
I do agree, that Greatest and Morley's might be worth more (if it's not a Greatest Player that gets Morley ), but the chance of getting both HC out of say 3 HCs is something like 0.55% - and then, when it's the one with Greatest that also gets Morley each HC may actually be worth less, so overall it's really negligible, i think and simple addition of simple HC-values should suffice... |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 08:25 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | | Fallen00 wrote: | Very unrealistic of you, Janmattys. Do you think everyone will have 5+ blackbox team? the current trend is one per coach. the scheduler would need 20 Coaches to schedule 2-4 matches.
I hope BigC is wiser than you Jan. It would be dreadful to see your system implemented |
1- Err??
2- Read what I write
3- Understand what I write, particularly the part that implies that my suggestion about the handling of handicaps in DivB would NOT affect the pairing system.
4- Think |
I agree.
| JanMattys wrote: | | 5- If you refer to my suggestion of +/-5% TS, I'd gladly have less games in a truly random competitive environment than joke ones. We can discuss if the acceptable cut is 5%, 7%, 10% or a fixed number, but my point stands. |
I agree, there should be a cut-off in general, but I think the currently existing one (15TS) is a good compromise between matching and fairness.
| JanMattys wrote: | and sorry, can't resist:
6- You're a guy coaching 0 rrs mutated chaos exploiting the system. Are you really trying to tell me I'm not helping the DivB cause, while you are? |
I disagree on viewing something like that as "exploiting" (much, like I don't see buying only 4 RR instead of 5 because you think it's not worth it as "exploiting")
However (and more importantly): This is not related to this thread, to any posting in this thread and I don't see why someone coaching 0 RRs (like Fallen or me) shouldn't be able to post his ideas about DivB.
So if you want to discuss this topic further: Go, open your own thread and quit trolling in this one |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 13:41 |
|
| treborius wrote: | | However (and more importantly): This is not related to this thread, to any posting in this thread and I don't see why someone coaching 0 RRs (like Fallen or me) shouldn't be able to post his ideas about DivB. |
That's not what Jan said.
He said that playing 0 RR teams is abusing the system. It's a fact, Fallen has even stated so many times. Also, you're wrong when you say it's the same than buying 4 instead of 5, because you get a TS discount when you have no RRs. This discount is not removed/lowered when you have a Leader. Clearly, that's one of the numerous flaws of the current TS formula.
Jan only said that his brainstorming about a "better" Blackbox was at least as useful as Fallen's constant abuse of the system (i mean, doing it with 1 team was enough to make a point).
Please note that i do not condemn this abuse, as Blackbox is in Alpha stage, and abusing flaws is part of the debugging process. But, again, the point has been made already, so no need to keep on going.
| Quote: | | So if you want to discuss this topic further: Go, open your own thread and quit trolling in this one |
Fallen's intervention would qualify as trolling much more than what Jan said, since basically all he said is "be realistic" and "your idea sucks". |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
vanGorn
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 15:33 |
|
| funnyfingers wrote: | westerner - Well the idea is that with more handicaps, you are more likely to get the better ones such as morley's and greatest. Those two together are quite good, though combination really wasn't my intention.
TheCetusProject - I think the handicaps are needed in order to provide more matchups. If you take away handicaps, you limit the amount of possible matchups. |
Well, the more hc the better the chances to get the good ones. But at the same time the chance to draw a crappy one is raised, too.
And there is no synergy of handicaps except a cumulative effect on taking out players. On the other hand there is the chance of one player becoming target of several hc, for instance a player might be affected by virus and greatest, effectively invalidating the latter. |
_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.
 |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 15:58 |
|
| Eddy wrote: | | treborius wrote: | | However (and more importantly): This is not related to this thread, to any posting in this thread and I don't see why someone coaching 0 RRs (like Fallen or me) shouldn't be able to post his ideas about DivB. |
That's not what Jan said.
He said that playing 0 RR teams is abusing the system. It's a fact, Fallen has even stated so many times. Also, you're wrong when you say it's the same than buying 4 instead of 5, because you get a TS discount when you have no RRs. |
How is any of that relevant to the thread's topic of handicaps? It's a cheap attempt to disqualify Fallen's argument via unrelated attacks on his record.
| Eddy wrote: | | Fallen's intervention would qualify as trolling much more than what Jan said, since basically all he said is "be realistic" and "your idea sucks". |
Fallen probably thought that Jan was insisting on strict-TR matching, as did I, before Jan clarified. That kind of stuff happens all the time on these boards. Jan responded to harshness with harshness, but it was his #6 that was over the line. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 16:01 |
|
| vanGorn wrote: | Well, the more hc the better the chances to get the good ones. But at the same time the chance to draw a crappy one is raised, too.
And there is no synergy of handicaps except a cumulative effect on taking out players. On the other hand there is the chance of one player becoming target of several hc, for instance a player might be affected by virus and greatest, effectively invalidating the latter. |
That happened to me once - best player got hit by Virus and Greatest. I agree that handi's should probably be valued independently. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 16:09 |
|
| westerner wrote: |
How is any of that relevant to the thread's topic of handicaps? It's a cheap attempt to disqualify Fallen's argument via unrelated attacks on his record. |
It's not an attack on Fallen's record. It's a statement that Jan's attempt ar at least as constructive as Fallen's abuse of the current system is.
| Quote: | | Fallen probably thought that Jan was insisting on strict-TR matching, as did I, before Jan clarified. That kind of stuff happens all the time on these boards. Jan responded to harshness with harshness, but it was his #6 that was over the line. |
When someone doesn't understand what someone else suggests, it's better to ask for clarification than to throw abuse at them. |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 16:30 |
|
| Eddy wrote: | | westerner wrote: |
How is any of that relevant to the thread's topic of handicaps? It's a cheap attempt to disqualify Fallen's argument via unrelated attacks on his record. |
It's not an attack on Fallen's record. It's a statement that Jan's attempt ar at least as constructive as Fallen's abuse of the current system is. |
The point still is: Playing with 0 RRs is in no way related to this thread and whether or not that is abuse *really* doesn't matter here
(I'll be glad to take part in discussing that topic elsewhere, though )
| Eddy wrote: | | Fallen's intervention would qualify as trolling much more than what Jan said, since basically all he said is "be realistic" and "your idea sucks". |
I don't agree with Fallen either, however he didn't use "realistic" (as you quote it out of context) in a polemic way, but was just saying that he thinks there would be less match-ups happening, so it wouldn't be realistic to implement that idea. His tone might not be perfectly friendly, but it's on topic at least (and not as unpolite as you quote it).
The questionable part of Jan's response has nothing to do with the topic however and after he did this in my last Blog as well (which didn't have anything to do with 0RR either ) I do consider this not accidental, but plain and common intentional trolling
(trolling="An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.", wikipedia)
case closed (in my book, anyways ) |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 16:34 |
|
| Eddy wrote: | | It's not an attack on Fallen's record. It's a statement that Jan's attempt ar at least as constructive as Fallen's abuse of the current system is. |
It's making the argument more personal in an unrelated and inflammatory way.
| Quote: | | When someone doesn't understand what someone else suggests, it's better to ask for clarification than to throw abuse at them. |
Agreed, although you often don't know that until after the fact. Corollary: when someone responds harshly to you apparently misunderstanding what you wrote, clarify rather than throw abuse back.  |
_________________
\x/es |
|
|
|
| |
Cindy is back?
Search
