13 coaches online • Server time: 05:51
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   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
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%
 16%  [ 12 ]
1 TS
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
2 TS
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
3 TS
17%
 17%  [ 13 ]
4 TS
6%
 6%  [ 5 ]
5 TS
42%
 42%  [ 32 ]
6 TS
2%
 2%  [ 2 ]
7 TS
2%
 2%  [ 2 ]
8 TS
2%
 2%  [ 2 ]
9 TS
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
10 TS
8%
 8%  [ 6 ]
Total Votes : 75


treborius



Joined: Apr 05, 2008

Post   Posted: Dec 31, 2008 - 16:44 Reply with quote Back to top

Eddy wrote:
Huh? You just need to turn off handicaps in the client. Winnings would still use TR and everything'd be as Jan said. I'm not saying it's good or bad, i'm saying it's possible.


westerner wrote:
I'm not terribly fond of handis but it is part of LRB4. One side effect of eliminating Virus would probably be more keeping of nigglers.


TheCetusProject wrote:
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.


Since it seems to be possible to play w/o HC - does anyone know the reasoning behind why we have HC in Black-Box if it's so easy to switch off? (actually I haven't tried it myself)

I can only think of 1 reason, that Westerner brought up: Nigglers would be more common and wouldn't get sacked as promptly as in divisions with HCs.

While I can't see a problem with that directly I'm wondering whether that would skew the team-building-chances between different races in an unfavorable way?
shadow46x2



Joined: Nov 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 31, 2008 - 18:05 Reply with quote Back to top

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.


really?....while yeah i can agree that 5+ teams per coach, at this moment, may be an exaggeration....the "current trend" certainly is not one per coach...

example...the last cycle that passed...

peke - 2
unstoffe - 2
StanRichardson - 3
Grunt - 1
blackwidow - 2
vesto - 1
yuri_levich - 4
clarkin - 3
lordnad - 2
tbk - 3
flix - 3
ansbach - 3
hermano_p - 1
downblitz - 6

36 teams, 14 coaches...that's 2.57 teams per coach...

nice "current trend" you have there....

2-3 teams per coach, right now, is a lot more accurate, and reasonable....obviously the more diehard coaches will have more, and the more casual coaches will have less...but the overall average, i would wager, should be in the 2-3/coach range...

--j

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

ImageImage
westerner



Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Post   Posted: Dec 31, 2008 - 20:36 Reply with quote Back to top

Are handis used in all other FUMBBL divisions?

I know [R] uses them, but the various divisional rules don't mention them specifically.

_________________
\x/es
SillySod



Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Post   Posted: Dec 31, 2008 - 21:12 Reply with quote Back to top

Shadow, please learn the difference between a mean and a mode Wink i.e. although the average number of coaches might be between 2 and 3 there are still plenty of coaches with just one team... then again I like Jans system Very Happy I certainly dont think it would penalise coaches for having just one team in the box and even if it did I dont think I'd exactly weep about it.

For the record I think that 3TS would be about right (unless the TS system changes). My reasoning is pretty simple:
- handicaps are probably worth a little more than 5TS each on average, translate something like doom and gloom or "it wasnt me" into TS and you'll find its pretty hefty.
- handicaps often arent as good as they should be on paper, simply because they've not been selected as part of the team... an 8th vampire RR might be worth 7TS on paper but it isnt that useful in practice.
- handicaps arent ever going to be possible to evaluate very precisely
- it shouldnt be optimal to give away a load of handicaps. It shouldnt be a punishment either but something is amiss if teams are deliberately hoarding cash and clocking up injuries just to give away handicaps.
All those things make me think that 3 is the correct valuation, obviously they are worth a little more than that but I think its one of those things where you should be on the safe side.

_________________
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."
treborius



Joined: Apr 05, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2009 - 10:09 Reply with quote Back to top

westerner wrote:
Are handis used in all other FUMBBL divisions?

I know [R] uses them, but the various divisional rules don't mention them specifically.


I'm pretty sure they are currently used in all divisions and I suspect that's exactly the reason why we have them in Black-Box (i.e. it just hasn't been changed for Black-Box and hence there was a need to evaluate HCs in terms of TS and consider that in the matching-algorithm).

EDIT: So rather historic reasoning for HCs in Black-Box than rational reasoning.
shadow46x2



Joined: Nov 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2009 - 10:18 Reply with quote Back to top

SillySod wrote:
Shadow, please learn the difference between a mean and a mode Wink i.e. although the average number of coaches might be between 2 and 3 there are still plenty of coaches with just one team...


funny...

the mode of the sample size that i used....

is still 2-3

--j

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

ImageImage
westerner



Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2009 - 14:18 Reply with quote Back to top

treborius wrote:
I'm pretty sure they [handicaps] are currently used in all divisions and I suspect that's exactly the reason why we have them in Black-Box (i.e. it just hasn't been changed for Black-Box and hence there was a need to evaluate HCs in terms of TS and consider that in the matching-algorithm).

EDIT: So rather historic reasoning for HCs in Black-Box than rational reasoning.

In that case I'd be inclined to keep handi's so as to match the rest of the site.

_________________
\x/es
Eddy



Joined: Aug 04, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2009 - 14:53 Reply with quote Back to top

westerner wrote:

In that case I'd be inclined to keep handi's so as to match the rest of the site.


Each division has specificities, and arguably the box is the most specific, so maybe applying the same reasoning as everywhere else is not a good idea.

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



Joined: Apr 05, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2009 - 15:36 Reply with quote Back to top

Eddy wrote:
westerner wrote:

In that case I'd be inclined to keep handi's so as to match the rest of the site.


Each division has specificities, and arguably the box is the most specific, so maybe applying the same reasoning as everywhere else is not a good idea.


I agree, playing w/o HCs in Black-Box would:

1. make matchings more fair w/o the chance/risk of getting/giving extremely poor/strong HCs
2. make matchings more transparent - no more whining by coaches about playing at -29 TS (disregarding HCs) while the cutoff is actually at 15 TS diff.
sk8bcn



Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2009 - 16:07 Reply with quote Back to top

treborius wrote:
Eddy wrote:
westerner wrote:

In that case I'd be inclined to keep handi's so as to match the rest of the site.


Each division has specificities, and arguably the box is the most specific, so maybe applying the same reasoning as everywhere else is not a good idea.


I agree, playing w/o HCs in Black-Box would:

1. make matchings more fair w/o the chance/risk of getting/giving extremely poor/strong HCs
2. make matchings more transparent - no more whining by coaches about playing at -29 TS (disregarding HCs) while the cutoff is actually at 15 TS diff.


I would favor too handicap disabled. Would be cooler, actually.

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes
Wreckage



Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2009 - 17:00 Reply with quote Back to top

sk8bcn wrote:
treborius wrote:
Eddy wrote:
westerner wrote:

In that case I'd be inclined to keep handi's so as to match the rest of the site.


Each division has specificities, and arguably the box is the most specific, so maybe applying the same reasoning as everywhere else is not a good idea.


I agree, playing w/o HCs in Black-Box would:

1. make matchings more fair w/o the chance/risk of getting/giving extremely poor/strong HCs
2. make matchings more transparent - no more whining by coaches about playing at -29 TS (disregarding HCs) while the cutoff is actually at 15 TS diff.


I would favor too handicap disabled. Would be cooler, actually.



i think here are much important aspects not taken into account...

1. Handi-Teams
there are some teams that are underrated strenghwise like ogres, halflings or goblins... their tr is normally much higher then their ts... they give away handis on their strengh and are supposed to... them getting handicaps is what actually makes them fit into the enviroment... by simply changing that they wouldnt fit anymore that well in...

2. Criterium to choose
in ranked handicaps are a more minor aspect to choose games on... people will either try to avoid them at all and just take what comes or hope for the best, because they will not have any chance to get a better way anyways... people never used to add 5 ts to a teams value and said... hey your team aint that much stronger...

3. Higher TR = Stronger Team
teams with high tr normally have that for a reason... the ts is a good indicator for fair games, but the tr given handicaps are what makes the game really fair... the coach who builds the team in a crappy way has to take some responsibity for it TR wise... TR would be the REAL indicator anyways! therfore the TS formular should NOT work in the favor of a coach with a highly unbalanced team....


for that reason i voted for a handicap to have an affect of 3TS(arguably 4TS)... wich means it will not ignore the fact that the other coach is getting a handicap as advantage but the benefit for having an unbalanced team will be rather low and most likley not worth it...
Astarael



Joined: Aug 14, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2009 - 18:36 Reply with quote Back to top

shadow46x2 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.


really?....while yeah i can agree that 5+ teams per coach, at this moment, may be an exaggeration....the "current trend" certainly is not one per coach...

example...the last cycle that passed...

peke - 2
unstoffe - 2
StanRichardson - 3
Grunt - 1
blackwidow - 2
vesto - 1
yuri_levich - 4
clarkin - 3
lordnad - 2
tbk - 3
flix - 3
ansbach - 3
hermano_p - 1
downblitz - 6

36 teams, 14 coaches...that's 2.57 teams per coach...

nice "current trend" you have there....

2-3 teams per coach, right now, is a lot more accurate, and reasonable....obviously the more diehard coaches will have more, and the more casual coaches will have less...but the overall average, i would wager, should be in the 2-3/coach range...

--j


Current Active Teams per coach (where at least one team of the coaches has played a game):

Coaches with 1 team: 52
Coaches with 2 teams: 35
Coaches with 3 teams: 17
Coaches with 4 teams: 7
Coaches with 5 teams: 5
Coaches with 6 teams: 2
Coaches with 18 teams: 1

Got bored so this is just coaches that began with A or B.

_________________
Oh my.
JanMattys



Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2009 - 18:46 Reply with quote Back to top

Astarael wrote:
shadow46x2 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.


really?....while yeah i can agree that 5+ teams per coach, at this moment, may be an exaggeration....the "current trend" certainly is not one per coach...

example...the last cycle that passed...

peke - 2
unstoffe - 2
StanRichardson - 3
Grunt - 1
blackwidow - 2
vesto - 1
yuri_levich - 4
clarkin - 3
lordnad - 2
tbk - 3
flix - 3
ansbach - 3
hermano_p - 1
downblitz - 6

36 teams, 14 coaches...that's 2.57 teams per coach...

nice "current trend" you have there....

2-3 teams per coach, right now, is a lot more accurate, and reasonable....obviously the more diehard coaches will have more, and the more casual coaches will have less...but the overall average, i would wager, should be in the 2-3/coach range...

--j


Current Active Teams per coach (where at least one team of the coaches has played a game):

Coaches with 1 team: 52
Coaches with 2 teams: 35
Coaches with 3 teams: 17
Coaches with 4 teams: 7
Coaches with 5 teams: 5
Coaches with 6 teams: 2
Coaches with 18 teams: 1

Got bored so this is just coaches that began with A or B.


Which makes 52 coaches with one team, and 67 coaches with at least double that amount.

_________________
Image
nThatch



Joined: Jan 13, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2009 - 19:36 Reply with quote Back to top

JanMattys wrote:
It makes no sense to weight handicaps in TS terms. They vary too much in power and ingame effects, and the "average hc value" would always be unaccurate.
Average is not a synonym of fair or just.

Personally I'd love to match teams by TS, putting a max limit of +/- 5% ts in blackbox pairings, and I would eliminate handicaps at all.


I only see the request of getting artifical setups in both the TS setup and the current setup. Wouldnt it be weird if a top sportsteam got ranked, and could only play other teams of equal rank? (hope u get my drift) Wouldnt a TS only system hold fling teams back,playing almost only othwer mangled teams?

ed: I see I have misplaced my input.However I will point to that i oppose to any rankingsystems for which teams to play. Randomize it, play it! This is how legends are made. Beeing the underdog usually means it all goes to he**. But it also summons greatness. If u could overcome tr240 orcs with your tr116 woodies. A defeat could just as much be a sort of win.(keeping the team that is;)
mightyblow



Joined: Dec 20, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 02, 2009 - 20:40 Reply with quote Back to top

shadow46x2 wrote:
SillySod wrote:
Shadow, please learn the difference between a mean and a mode Wink i.e. although the average number of coaches might be between 2 and 3 there are still plenty of coaches with just one team...


funny...

the mode of the sample size that i used....

is still 2-3

--j


PWNED! Statistics rocks, even though the girls usually don't appreciate it Sad
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