EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Jan 21, 2009 - 19:16 |
 
|
| Frankenstein wrote: |
That's exactly what I, personally, would consider unasked for patronizing. But then, I'm pro choice in RL as well. |
But you use BoxlikeOpinions so your thoughts don't matter.  |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2009 - 19:36 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | On the other hand, even without the "need for different races" problem, activating all teams boosts quite a lot the chance for decent matchups. It's not a matter of limiting personal freedom of choice, but the whole point of a balanced random matchups division needs a large pool of teams.
I guess that's one of the major needs of the division, actually. DivB wouldn't be so popular if there were less teams, because it would provide even weirder matchups, or no matchups at all at times. |
The reason to proceed so (especially in beta) is obvious, of course, and people who activate all there teams on GF in general certainly won't mind anyway.
Nevertheless, I can imagine there are also coaches out there who'd like to play their preferred team/race when they want to, instead of taking the risk of being forced into being assigned a team they have no interest in playing at all at a particular point of time.
For me, one of the most appealing points of such a division (besides the excitement of getting a fair game against a random opponent without bothering of being taken advantage of) would be the fact that you would be able to find a game with specific teams quickly and easily.
In fact, I have been massively flamed in this thread here for playing dorfs and khemri when I wanted nothing more than playing elfs. That's simply ironic, especially if you consider that the same guys moan about the division's missing diversity and seem to suggest more patronizing because of a problem amplified by patronizing.
And to counter the upcoming objection in advance: I'm pretty much convinced, that reasonable games within the pool would have been possible with elfs as well most of the times, the scheduler just decided otherwise. |
Last edited by Frankenstein on %b %21, %2009 - %21:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2009 - 19:44 |
|
| EvolveToAnarchism wrote: | | Frankenstein wrote: |
That's exactly what I, personally, would consider unasked for patronizing. But then, I'm pro choice in RL as well. |
But you use BoxlikeOpinions so your thoughts don't matter. |
Of course they don't!  |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2009 - 21:25 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | On the other hand, even without the "need for different races" problem, activating all teams boosts quite a lot the chance for decent matchups. It's not a matter of limiting personal freedom of choice, but the whole point of a balanced random matchups division needs a large pool of teams.
I guess that's one of the major needs of the division, actually. DivB wouldn't be so popular if there were less teams, because it would provide even weirder matchups, or no matchups at all at times. |
That's true. There is a balancing act to be made between even TR/TS matchups and preference of teams though. It's a continuum something like:
Most "even" games: (Team preferences disregarded entirely)
/\
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
\/
Most "wanted" games: (Unpreferred teams only scheduled if preferred team are outside hard TR/TS limits for a match)
It could be argued (I personally would argue it) that team preference could be given a larger weighting than at present. But really it should depend on what the community as a whole values more. I'd rather play a slightly less "fair" match with the team I feel like playing; others may prefer a "fairer" match with their B- or C-team.
***
On the point of categorising teams, I feel that doing it by race is a bit of a blunt instrument. What you really want is something akin to the TS calculation, applicable for all races, i.e. so many "bash" points for strength skills, and high ST and AV players, so many "ball" points for agility skills and high AG players. So a starting chaos team may be rated as "Bash," but if you give them pass and catch they verge towards neutral, if you're lucky enough to roll lots of +AG skills, you might be classed as a "Ball" team! Conversely an elf team would be ballers to start with, but once you've given them all DP, Tackle and Mighty Blow they would be classed as bashers!
Otherwise I fear that classification by race alone will simply encourage "standard" tactics for certain teams, and not encourage people to play a little differently (which are always the most entertaining teams to play!). |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2009 - 11:44 |
|
| Ash wrote: | | sk8bcn wrote: | My position is:
In order to get more racial diversity, don't create rules to enforce to play what you don't want, but use some positive discremination.
And not something about win. Some ratings that would boost your ego.
(for exemple, who never cheked his awards, or the ranking of his team in TR or TS? Wouldn't you be tempted to have the currect best ranked vampire team? Be the Vampire coach of the month? IMO that would encourage some wider choices of races while letting everyone plays as he feels) |
I disagree... it s easyer to be the greatest coach of vampire of the month (or years, whatever) if there is only 5 vampires team out there....
It s a lot harder to be the best orc coach as you have a lot of competition...
So it s going the other way you want to, isn t it? |
Nope. Let's say I want to be the best of something. Orcs. wow...so many...That's difficult.
The best vampire coach seems easier. Let's create a vampire team then! |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2009 - 12:39 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | | But really it should depend on what the community as a whole values more. I'd rather play a slightly less "fair" match with the team I feel like playing; others may prefer a "fairer" match with their B- or C-team. |
The point is it's not only your personal choice. You might want a less fair matchup with preferred team over a perfect matchup with unpreferred team... but the system would apply to all, so if the system grants you the chance to only activate your preferred team, you become a factor in the matchup for all coaches involved in your round (a factor of less-likely even games overall, not just for you).
But I see your point, and Frankenstein's. I think only Christer can decide on this,because he can see the data and run some tests (maybe) to see how (and if) a "preferred teams only activation" would screw the matchups. |
_________________
 |
|
fenric
Joined: Jan 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2009 - 13:29 |
|
I don't understand the box sometimes. The other day myself and another coach didn't get scheduled, although our team were pretty close- 90/49 and 90/68. Is there a reason those two teams wouldn't get matched up? |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2009 - 13:32 |
|
You cannot get matches against a team that is more than 15TS away from you in either direction. The difference here is 19. You violated the hard cap. |
|
|
fenric
Joined: Jan 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2009 - 13:48 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | You cannot get matches against a team that is more than 15TS away from you in either direction. The difference here is 19. You violated the hard cap. |
Ahhh... thanks for the info. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 23, 2009 - 22:37 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | | The point is it's not only your personal choice. |
Exactly. That's why I said it ought best to reflect the community preference.
You're right that Christer could look at how, or if, tweaking the weighting given to preferred teams would "screw" the matchups. The question for the community is how much "screwing" of matchups is acceptable in order to play your team that you want. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
