treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
 Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 11:28 |
 
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | | 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. |
i agree: tournaments in B would be kool and probably make the division more popular 
babying is in R and not in B 
| sk8bcn wrote: | | 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. |
i expect that too, but to me that's not a reason for B-tourneys > R-tourneys 
(i.e. the reason a lot of teams do so well in R has alot todo with exactly the "babying" of teams going on until they finally enter a tourney for those 4 or 5 matches of peak perfomance before being put in baby-wrappings again until next tourney - this applies to low-AV-teams even more than high-AV-teams).
please note, that i do think it's a good idea to give low-AV-teams a bit of an edge over high-AV-teams in Black-Box-match-ups so they do have the advantage of being able to win more games on avg (just slightly, though).
so my vote for: stop babysitting, cherry-picking or whatever you wanna call it and spend your time playing some serious games instead of wasting it on noob-hunting in R!
EDIT: i guess i was a bit off topic so...
| sk8bcn wrote: | | For points raised up by peers, if the game isn't scheduled on TS only, then on TS+BR but not a monthly one. |
strongly agree!
EDIT2: or TS+BR+BBR, but not a monthly BR nor a monthly BBR |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 14:27 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | | why no tournaments? Especially why not if they don't count more than regular games? |
They will count for more than the regular games. If only there is the title that you can show off in your coach profile. Besides.. at the moment [B] games count for exactly nothing. So tourney wins will count for more.
So why no tournaments.. lets see.. if I want to win a tourney, what will my first step be? Right.. getting a near perfect team for the tourney conditions. That means highest possible TR/TS with the lowest amount of injuries. But as I cannot pick, I will just trash my BR to the deepest depths until the scheduler feeds me cherries every time I join the box. Then all I have to do is pick orcs and play protective on the pitch, which is easy, if you don`t care for out-tourney-wins at all. This will make building my monster orcs/chaos pretty easy and I`ll enter your [B] major with a team so pimped, that I have a serious advantage.
With the BR depending scheduling it`s already really tempting to try and keep one`s BR low. With tournaments in [B], there is even an added teambuilding incentive. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 14:41 |
|
Ok, forget the BCR monthly rating reset idea.. hopefully, other competitive measures can be found suitable for an informal king-of-the-ring format.
Just brainstorming a few ideas:
1) TD differential
2) SPP's earned
3) combination of win% and TS differential faced along the lines of sk8bcn's suggestion
4) BR |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Unstoffe
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 15:26 |
|
The monthly reset wasn't a bad idea - I suspect it would have produced a more accurate ranking than many other formulae.
Most of those suggested simply reward playing more games, but even if you had something more complicated there are problems.
Win% weighted by TS? But with the random matchups, the monthly winner would likely be somebody who got lucky and mainly faced unskilled coaches that month.
Include some kind of coach rating? But then you make it harder for the better coaches to win, they will just say, this championship rewards metagaming rather than actual skill.
Bottom line though, while some kind of championship wouldn't do any harm, a competition to achieve the best score according to some mathematical formula will never be as exciting as a KO tournament.
Speaking of which...
Can't say I agree with Circ's position that metagaming BR would allow the easy build of a monster orc/chaos team for a tourney. Sure, you'll on average face slightly weaker opponents, but you'll still get Loved by Elephants and their ilk now and again - and even if you are, say 215-200 TS up on a team like that, it's still going to put a crimp on your pimping efforts.
And, of course you'd have to continually balance each win with your pimped team by playing a game deliberately badly with one of your other teams. Such dedication probably deserves some kind of reward |
_________________
British or thereabouts? Check out the White Isle League |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 15:36 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | sk8bcn wrote: | | why no tournaments? Especially why not if they don't count more than regular games? |
They will count for more than the regular games. If only there is the title that you can show off in your coach profile. Besides.. at the moment (B) games count for exactly nothing. So tourney wins will count for more.
So why no tournaments.. lets see.. if I want to win a tourney, what will my first step be? Right.. getting a near perfect team for the tourney conditions. That means highest possible TR/TS with the lowest amount of injuries. But as I cannot pick, I will just trash my BR to the deepest depths until the scheduler feeds me cherries every time I join the box. Then all I have to do is pick orcs and play protective on the pitch, which is easy, if you don`t care for out-tourney-wins at all. This will make building my monster orcs/chaos pretty easy and I`ll enter your (B) major with a team so pimped, that I have a serious advantage.
With the BR depending scheduling it`s already really tempting to try and keep one`s BR low. With tournaments in (B), there is even an added teambuilding incentive. |
while i can't deny, that the scenario you're sketching is in principle possible - i don't think it should prohibit tourneys in B, because:
1. since BR is only a minor part of the matching-algorithm besides TS and BBR, i don't think it could in any way end up as terrible as you're sketching it.
2. even if people were deliberatly trying hard to loose a number of games in order to thereafter build up their tourney-team, the possibilites of getting easy games are still much more limited than they currently are in R where experienced coaches with the nerves just have to wait long enough to pick games which wouldn't even be allowed by the scheduler in B (and certainly not matched-up on a regular basis) no matter how long they were pushing down BR.
So far, i think i've only seen 1 instance where a team with more than 10 matches has played up more than 5 TS on avg (i think it was about 6 TS and that was a coach with a CR>180 in R).
EDIT: So i'm not saying that B is the remedy of all problems, but it's an improvement over R |
|
|
WardenUSA
Joined: Jan 24, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 15:37 |
|
I know I really Really would like tournaments and would be more than willing to help run them. No tournaments would mean I would stop playing the blackbox division |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 15:44 |
|
| westerner wrote: | Ok, forget the BCR monthly rating reset idea.. hopefully, other competitive measures can be found suitable for an informal king-of-the-ring format.
Just brainstorming a few ideas:
1) TD differential
2) SPP's earned
3) combination of win% and TS differential faced along the lines of sk8bcn's suggestion
4) BR |
Westerner, i'm happy you refrained from resetting the coach-ranking the scheduler uses (BR) on a regular basis.
I still think, that having something like a "parallel" coach-ranking just for the sake of determining the monthly champion (and not determining actual match-ups) is a good idea it would do what it's supposed to, even though you reset it periodically, i think.
It might still be subject to the amount of games you played within the particular time-frame, but beyond a certain # of games would probably be much more meaningful than TD-diff. and SPPs earned (which really depend alot on actual matchups and on the # of games you played) |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 16:16 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | sk8bcn wrote: | | why no tournaments? Especially why not if they don't count more than regular games? |
They will count for more than the regular games. If only there is the title that you can show off in your coach profile. Besides.. at the moment [B] games count for exactly nothing. So tourney wins will count for more. |
Let me rephrase:
Especially why not if they don't count more than regular games in term of BR?
| Quote: | | So why no tournaments.. lets see.. if I want to win a tourney, what will my first step be? Right.. getting a near perfect team for the tourney conditions. That means highest possible TR/TS with the lowest amount of injuries. But as I cannot pick, I will just trash my BR to the deepest depths until the scheduler feeds me cherries every time I join the box. Then all I have to do is pick orcs and play protective on the pitch, which is easy, if you don`t care for out-tourney-wins at all. This will make building my monster orcs/chaos pretty easy and I`ll enter your [B] major with a team so pimped, that I have a serious advantage. |
It's a bit ridiculous as an argument.
I might as well:
-pay a wiz-tech hacker to breach the site security and artificially create a TR 500 team.
-Bribe Christer so that he cheats the scheduler
-Bribe Skyjunkie for a cheater client in order to win everything.
| Quote: | | With the BR depending scheduling it`s already really tempting to try and keep one`s BR low. With tournaments in [B], there is even an added teambuilding incentive. |
Let's say for 20 seconds that my highest goal ever is to win a tournament. Let's suppose that BR is fairly similar to CR. Let's say I am BR 170 because if I am really lower, the chances I win this damn thing are pretty low.
So I'd better lose roughly 40 games (to end around BR 130) so that my TR 220 orks plays the next 10-20 games with a 5 to 10 TS advantage.
wow
better never ever start a tournament, the [B] will be filled with coaches of this profile. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 16:19 |
|
mmm
I wonder why I react this hard.
But I'm kinda fed up with the drastic fixes discussion for ultra minor loopholes of metagaming. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 16:21 |
|
| Unstoffe wrote: | Speaking of which...
Can't say I agree with Circ's position that metagaming BR would allow the easy build of a monster orc/chaos team for a tourney. Sure, you'll on average face slightly weaker opponents, but you'll still get Loved by Elephants and their ilk now and again - and even if you are, say 215-200 TS up on a team like that, it's still going to put a crimp on your pimping efforts.
And, of course you'd have to continually balance each win with your pimped team by playing a game deliberately badly with one of your other teams. Such dedication probably deserves some kind of reward |
And by slightly weaker opponents you mean 20TS lower and probably facing worse coaches. What are normally weaker opponents then?
And of course just because I build, doesn`t mean I have to win, right? I can simply concentrate on no-contact and fouling any player that might be a threat (DPs, claws, MBs) or fouling with my key player to get them safe.
And yes.. I really fear the killerkhermi, when I have 15TS higher orcs. I`m teh shaking!
How about we ask the admins to give me a 2nd account that I just use to powergame the system to get a max TS team? It would be limited playtesting and deleted after a certain period of time. Care to bet against me getting one of the strongest teams TS wise in [B]? |
|
|
Unstoffe
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 16:41 |
|
Sorry to respond point by point... but for accuracy's sake :
| CircularLogic wrote: | | And by slightly weaker opponents you mean 20TS lower and probably facing worse coaches. What are normally weaker opponents then? |
I really do think that the impact of BR/BBR on the average TS difference you will face is overhyped - to the extent that I'd give you odds on Christer making a post at some point saying 'hah, fooled you'. For instance, looking at the top 30 [B] teams by TS, there is one with a 2/5/20 record. The coach's personal record in [B] is 3/7/28. His average TS diff with the first team? 4. Hardly a massive advantage gained from his surely terrible BR there.
| Quote: | | And of course just because I build, doesn`t mean I have to win, right? |
Well no. But it won't be so easy, what with the reduction in FF and winnings.
| Quote: | | Care to bet against me getting one of the strongest teams TS wise in [B]? |
No
But then, I am sure you are a good enough coach to achieve this without any attempt to metagame too.
No need to make a second account anyway - this being alpha testing, you can perfectly legally do that in [B] now. I don't see much sign of it happening though. |
_________________
British or thereabouts? Check out the White Isle League |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 17:33 |
|
Looking at the last 10 games of said team, the average TSadvantage rises to +7.4
But why not go directly from the formula, assuming that BR will be like CR - starting at 150 and then increasing/decreasing in the same fashion. Lets keep BBR (an additional way of lowering the effective BR) out of the talk for a moment. . As the scheduling formula gives you games it views as equal, you will lose roughly 1BR per loss as long as siutable opponents (with low enough BR) are around. So lets imagine that with the new account I have brough my BR down to 125 after 35-40 losses and now I enter the box with my 'real' team. What opponents will the scheduler trying to give me? Highest chances are coaches with a CR of 142 or below. Against a BR142 coach I will still get the maximum TS advantage. If there are no coaches with BR below 142, I will get the highest possible TS advantage against the coach with the lowest BR in the box.
If you estimate, that I am currently BR175, then I have to face coaches that BR156 or higher and if such a coach is not available the strongest coach with the highest disadvantage possible. So you say that this is a 'minor loophole' and not a considerable factor?
If I have ranked orcs and play exclusively coaches with CR lower than 145 and always with 5-15 TS advantage and bring that team to the major, would you give me credits, that I played all races, or would you call me a filthy picker? |
|
|
Unstoffe
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 17:53 |
|
Not sure where you're getting the formula / figures from there?
My understanding is that the BR formula was originally similar to CR, as defined here. But, that doesn't mean it's the same, and I'm sure we were told that TS had been made 'more important' in some way.
You're probably right about the dropping 1 BR per game thing, I don't think we've been told the [B] K value but it's probably the same as [R]. Still, hard to believe you'd get down to 125, the only coaches below 135 or so would be other metagamers, also trying to lose
The thing is though, the scheduler being limited on TS, not on suitability, it will quite happily give you 'unsuitable' equal or worse TS games, no matter how low you can make your BR. This becomes more likely as your team gets stronger and there are fewer potential opponents, as indeed does facing stronger coaches (though, looking at the [B] rankings, it's clearly entirely possible to build a strong team despite losing regularly. Again, the point of your powergaming strategy is?)
Re. your hypothetical ranked orcs... yes that would be picking. Assuming though that they'd have played a random selection of teams with more bashers than not, I'd still respect them more than a team that had played mainly elves during build up. |
_________________
British or thereabouts? Check out the White Isle League |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 18:11 |
|
Christer posted how the scheduler works. I made a little spreadsheet which gives you the siutablitliy score for all TS combinations, if you enter BR BBR of both coaches and the TS of one team.
Using that, I came to the above conclusions. And even though the TS dif is capped, your siutability score for the 'best possible match' higher for BR closer to your own. Thus the probablility is significantly decreased, if the BR gap is wider than it could be made up by TS difference. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 18:23 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Looking at the last 10 games of said team, the average TSadvantage rises to +7.4 |
so you've actually found 1 (pronounced: one) team that has actually had a TS-advantage of +7.4 over the last 10 games vs. randomly chosen B-teams.
are you really trying to tell us, that this is relevant when compared to the picking taking place on an average team of a cherrypicker in R? (TS-wise and also in terms of picking non-harming teams?)
...and i resist to even start searching for the example that looks like it could be the worst cherrypicker in R (i think there was a Blog about cherrypicker-awards only a few days ago)...
...take a break |
|
|
|
|
| |
Cindy is back?
Search
