43 coaches online • Server time: 11:56
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
westerner



Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 18:59 Reply with quote Back to top

One idea raised in the Limited Retirement thread with broad support was this:

gregory_n_white wrote:
I was thinking on this and want to toss in an alternative for discussion - No {B} tournaments. This deals with part of the issue being discussed which is babying teams for tournament prep purposes. I might suggest instead that {B} is an informal king of the hill type scenario with the top teams (based on win ratio's and/or TR) reported regularly. Thus the purpose of {B} is face all comers and beat all comers.


A further refinement:
koadah wrote:
It would be nice to keep the proper BR but have a BCR(?) for a monthly championship and use that for scheduling. Reset BCR at the begining of each month.


Hmm, a {B} monthly championship? That's been discussed before:

Ansalon wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if {B} had it's own Championship taht counted only {B} games?

Also, Championship is so well suited for {B}. In {B} you can't cherrypick or choose your games, so the Championship standings each month would fairly accurate.


and the main criticism was:

spelledaren wrote:
If the bot didn't take BR into the calculations then sure, it would be great with a championsship. Now it would tell us nothing interesting.


and I believe part of the answer is:
odi wrote:
Well, if the BR is there in the calculations couldnt you measure it still on how high you can get your BR...

CircularLogic wrote:
Championship as a ranking with a monthly reset would have a meaning, if you keep the difficulty for TS and ditch the BR-difficulty.


So attempting to tie this all together, I would endorse a {B} monthly championship based on BCR rating, not win/draw/loss. BCR would work like BR, but be reset each month. All matches would be scheduled based on BCR. BR would remain as a long term competitive measure but would not be used for scheduling. Each month, a trophy would be awarded to top BCR coaches, and BR standings would be published so people can see both the monthly and all time "Kings of the Hill".

_________________
\x/es
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 20:26 Reply with quote Back to top

So basically every coach competing for the win will want to wait and play as many games a reasonable due to the formula as late as possible. For the complete rant, check the other thread.
westerner



Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 20:48 Reply with quote Back to top

I don't see the advantage of doing so. The championship would be based on BCR rating, not win%. So if you wait until the end of the month to play, you might get easier matches, but it'll be outweighed by having to make up a lot of BCR.

Conversely, if you go on a winning streak early in the month and then quit, your BCR can easily be surpassed.

_________________
\x/es
Irgy



Joined: Feb 21, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 21:02 Reply with quote Back to top

I think there's a lot of really bad ideas floating around in relation to this. But, I do quite like the particular combination you end up suggesting there Westerner. Particularly because it doesn't involve the scheduler. Not involving the scheduler eliminates the vast majority of meta-gaming options.

All I might suggest is that the monthly BCR does not need to be calculated the same way as CR and BR. In particular, rather than your BCR increase for winning being based on your opponent's BCR, it could be based on your opponent's BR. That way it will actually be a good measure of how well you played that month. As it stands, your opponent's BCR will not usually be a very effective measure of how good they are, and the end result will be a measure no better than straight W/T/L.

It would also be nice if BCR updated much quicker than BR/CR do, so that you don't need to play fifty games in the month to win.

CircularLogic: I think you're responding to an idea that's not the one actually written above. I can't see how what you're suggesting would help at all otherwise.
westerner



Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 21:10 Reply with quote Back to top

Irgy wrote:
Particularly because it doesn't involve the scheduler. Not involving the scheduler eliminates the vast majority of meta-gaming options.

I want to make sure I was clear: I am suggesting that BCR be used instead of BR for scheduling purposes. Which would result in some TS handicaps, but it would be reset each month.

_________________
\x/es
SillySod



Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 21:18 Reply with quote Back to top

CircularLogic is correct.... playing all your games at the start or end of the month would produce different environments for you to play in and I think that playing later in the month would probably be preferable. Plus of course resetting the figure used for scheduling every month will sort of destroy the point of having that as part of the formula in the first place.

_________________
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."
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 21:31 Reply with quote Back to top

Circ and Silly are right

BCR can't just keep going up like BR or it just becomes a race to play the most games.

If it works like to current Championship the latecomers get a point boost for beating higher BCR opponents and probably easier games too.

Without BCR it is mostly luck of the draw. Get 10 easy opponents and you're laughing.

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
westerner



Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 21:42 Reply with quote Back to top

No competitive environment is going to be perfect. In R there's metagaming and cherrypicking in prepping your team, as well as luck of the draw in tournament opponent. In an open tournament you have the problem of metagaming the entry/exit.

So, what if you don't show BCR until the end of the month. So you don't know exactly where you stand.

koadah wrote:
latecomers get a point boost for beating higher BCR opponents and probably easier games too.
(emphasis mine)

Meaning, they are way behind in the race for BCR and have many opponents to beat in order to win the championship. And once they get close, they no longer have an advantage.

_________________
\x/es
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 22:10 Reply with quote Back to top

Under the current Championship you only need to play 10 games to get the top rating. Some coaches could easily do that in two or three days.

If you can't get the top rating in 10 games coaches like me have no chance because 10 games is about all we can manage in a month.

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 22:59 Reply with quote Back to top

westerner wrote:
No competitive environment is going to be perfect.


But maybe alot more perfect. Lets take this:
- matches are scheduled by TS only
- competition is each month
- X = TS weight: 1-[(Average 'TS advantage after racial chart' squared)/400]
- Y = CR/BR weight: Average Opponent CR/BR divided by 150 (or whatever neutral point there is)
- Z = Number of matches factor: log(number of game) to the base of 3

Score = X*Y*Z*win%*100

There you go.. try to find an abuse to get high scores easily.
Irgy



Joined: Feb 21, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 23:10 Reply with quote Back to top

Ok, so I read it wrong and CircularLogic read it right. In which case I think it's a horrible idea, that could be almost completely fixed by taking the scheduler out of it.

I'm sorry, but BCR is the worst of both worlds as far as the scheduler goes. It loses the benefit of providing fair games because BCR is going to be quite random and erratic, and often reset. Meanwhile, it keeps all the problems people complain about. They'll be less in practical effect because BCR often won't have much effect in the first place, but as you've pointed out yourself the practical effect is fairly small anyway, it's the philosphical thing that annoys people. And this is even worse from a philosophical perspective.

Plus, it will be nothing but a massive pain in the neck to the vast majoritry of people who won't be interested in winning the monthly BCR tournament and just want to play some blood bowl without cherry picking. You're constantly going to be conscious of what time of the month it is and whether you've had a winning or losing streak so far this month, and whether you want to play early in the month when the BCRs have been reset etc. etc.
westerner



Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 23:52 Reply with quote Back to top

@Circ:
That does not maintain the slight boosts for weaker coaches provided by the current scheduler.

@Irgy:
BCR would be a compromise between the current scheduler and a strict-TS scheduler. It would prevent TS handicaps from becoming permanently entrenched. People not interested in the monthly championship can safely ignore it, just as many ignore BR now. The philosophy is also somewhat different. Instead of penalizing a strong coach for his performance since the beginning of time, now the system matches up this month's leaders with A) other leaders or B) slightly boosted non-leaders.

_________________
\x/es
treborius



Joined: Apr 05, 2008

Post   Posted: Jan 09, 2009 - 08:43 Reply with quote Back to top

SillySod wrote:
CircularLogic is correct.... playing all your games at the start or end of the month would produce different environments for you to play in and I think that playing later in the month would probably be preferable. Plus of course resetting the figure used for scheduling every month will sort of destroy the point of having that as part of the formula in the first place.


CircularLogic wrote:
So basically every coach competing for the win will want to wait and play as many games a reasonable due to the formula as late as possible. For the complete rant, check the other thread.


Irgy wrote:
(...)
I'm sorry, but BCR is the worst of both worlds as far as the scheduler goes. It loses the benefit of providing fair games because BCR is going to be quite random and erratic, and often reset. Meanwhile, it keeps all the problems people complain about. They'll be less in practical effect because BCR often won't have much effect in the first place, but as you've pointed out yourself the practical effect is fairly small anyway, it's the philosphical thing that annoys people. And this is even worse from a philosophical perspective.
(...)


i agree with the statements, above.

treborius (other thread) wrote:
this would just cause less reliable ratings while serving as one more invitation for optimisation-freaks to metagame: if you're a good coach just don't play after your rating has improved a lot, but just wait for the next reset, where you can get easier games, again Sad


and this one Wink

it's already been said in the other thread, as well, though i think understanding might have gotten messed up by the new distinction of BCR (as opposed to BR):

whatever it's called: resetting that coach-ranking that's being used by the scheduler in periodic time-intervals is a very bad idea imho. Sad

even if all coaches ability wouldn't change at all (i.e. they wouldn't learn or have a bad day, ever) that would yield fairly different match-ups throughout the time-frame: easier ones for "good" coaches during their first few games and harder ones for "bad" coaches during their first few games.

...Black-Box is about the scheduler producing "fair" matches (in terms of some definition of "fair" that incorporates some measure of coach-ranking) - resetting that coach-ranking is just a too sensitive thing to do and would result in lots of ranting, intransparency and meta-gaming-considerations.
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Jan 09, 2009 - 09:50 Reply with quote Back to top

westerner wrote:
@Circ:
That does not maintain the slight boosts for weaker coaches provided by the current scheduler.


Sorry.. you didn`t ask for a system were weaker coaches are given a leg up. As I understood it, you were claiming that a competitive environment is not possible and I showed you that it isn`t.

Now if you are asking for a competitive environment where the chances to win are equal for everyone regardless of skill, then I`m afraid I cannot help you.
sk8bcn



Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Post   Posted: Jan 09, 2009 - 10:41 Reply with quote Back to top

westerner wrote:
One idea raised in the Limited Retirement thread with broad support was this:

gregory_n_white wrote:
I was thinking on this and want to toss in an alternative for discussion - No {B} tournaments. This deals with part of the issue being discussed which is babying teams for tournament prep purposes. I might suggest instead that {B} is an informal king of the hill type scenario with the top teams (based on win ratio's and/or TR) reported regularly. Thus the purpose of {B} is face all comers and beat all comers.


why no tournaments? Especially why not if they don't count more than regular games? There's no screw up of your ranking anyway and I fail to see that babying problem people point out.

Another point is: I think R tourneys>Hypothetic B tourneys as at very high TR, with no opponent choice, handling elves is somehow tougher so I expect bashers to dominate there.

Quote:
Ansalon wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if {B} had it's own Championship taht counted only {B} games?

Also, Championship is so well suited for {B}. In {B} you can't cherrypick or choose your games, so the Championship standings each month would fairly accurate.


and the main criticism was:

spelledaren wrote:
If the bot didn't take BR into the calculations then sure, it would be great with a championsship. Now it would tell us nothing interesting.


Well could be done still, simply with an adapted formula. let's (just for the exemple) say that every opponent you play is at the same skill and races are no factor:

Let's say that statistically, 50% win percentage at -12 in TS is the skill of a BR 170 coach. So if you manage to it, that's your rank.

If next month you run at 50% at -14, then you had a very good month.


ps: I never cared for monthly championships, I always found those dull.

Quote:
and I believe part of the answer is:
odi wrote:
Well, if the BR is there in the calculations couldnt you measure it still on how high you can get your BR...

CircularLogic wrote:
Championship as a ranking with a monthly reset would have a meaning, if you keep the difficulty for TS and ditch the BR-difficulty.


To circ's answer, I can't agree, see before.

Quote:
So attempting to tie this all together, I would endorse a {B} monthly championship based on BCR rating, not win/draw/loss. BCR would work like BR, but be reset each month. All matches would be scheduled based on BCR. BR would remain as a long term competitive measure but would not be used for scheduling. Each month, a trophy would be awarded to top BCR coaches, and BR standings would be published so people can see both the monthly and all time "Kings of the Hill".


For points raised up by peers, if the game isn't scheduled on TS only, then on TS+BR but not a monthly one.

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes
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