sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
 Posted:
Jan 24, 2009 - 13:57 |
 
|
In the primary stage of the league, Christer proposed to disable handis. Many were against but after some testing phase, I think removing them would improve the fairness of the game selection.
This is the alpha stage, trials and tests. Could we have a period of test without handicaps. I think it would be better but testing it out could help improving the Blackbox.
Remember: we are into a testing phase! |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 24, 2009 - 15:17 |
|
Reducing handicaps to being worth 3TS would do the trick IMO. Handicaps are still fun and cool to have but currently theres no decent incentive to keep your TR in check, making handicaps worth less woul fix that. One big problem with taking them out is you take out the possibility of virus which encourages mass-niggles. |
_________________
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." |
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 24, 2009 - 17:08 |
|
The problem with handicaps is that they're so random. It's far from rare that the BoxBot sets you up with matches where you're, say 20 TS down before you count in three handis, and the handis are supposed to make up for most of the difference. Now, pretty often you get some garbage handicaps, and you're in deep, deep troubles before the match even started (this is especially true if the match starts off something like 155/120 vs 100/100 - unless you get spectacular handis, you're utterly hosed).
This leads me to something else - the value of handicaps aren't fixed. For instance, one handicap at TS 100 sure as heck isn't worth 5 TS on average, whereas it's pretty much a bargain at TS 250. This is because the really good handicaps typically take out players, and players are worth more at high TS.
Valuing a handicap at perhaps 3% of TS seems about right to me. |
_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”
—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 24, 2009 - 19:04 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | One big problem with taking them out is you take out the possibility of virus which encourages mass-niggles. |
Well there's two different things:
Fix handicap TS worthiness, which affect Ranked as well (what is out of scope of this proposition) and remove handicaps from Blackbox who is in testing phase.
I can't agree with the mass niggler thing. In ranked, people try to avoid niggler teams but still try to play without handicaps. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
Lill-Leif
Joined: Nov 17, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 24, 2009 - 19:15 |
|
| Quote: | | The problem with handicaps is that they're so random. |
So is the kickoff-table, it's part of what makes bb fun. A game including dices is usually... random! |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 24, 2009 - 19:38 |
|
I really don't understand the argument that Virus prevents "mass-nigglers". I think people usually sack players with NI because they fear to be let down "en masse" and to get trashed as a result.
Also, while some amount of randomness is nice, the aim of Blackbox is to propose challenging and fair (according to all BB parameters, including BR and BBR) games. So reducing the influence of randomness in the matching process looks like a main goal. Randomness on the field is another matter entirely. |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 24, 2009 - 19:53 |
|
Handicaps DIRECTLY interferes with the purpose of BlackBox.
BlackBox was made for fair, unquestionable match-ups.
Handicaps were made to EVEN OUT unfair match-ups.
You do the logical deduction. |
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010 |
|
Lill-Leif
Joined: Nov 17, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 24, 2009 - 20:16 |
|
| Quote: | Handicaps DIRECTLY interferes with the purpose of BlackBox.
BlackBox was made for fair, unquestionable match-ups.
Handicaps were made to EVEN OUT unfair match-ups. |
Put this between statement 2 and 3:
Blackbox sometimes make unfair questionable match-ups. |
|
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2009 - 08:01 |
|
| Lill-Leif wrote: | | Quote: | | The problem with handicaps is that they're so random. |
So is the kickoff-table, it's part of what makes bb fun. A game including dices is usually... random! |
The game is rarely very good if the rolls on the kick-off table is what decides it. Handicaps increases the randomness of the game, and reduces the skill factor. |
_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”
—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess |
|
magan174
Joined: Aug 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2009 - 08:51 |
|
Well well well. If so many of you think that Bowlbot pair up uneven matchups why don´t implement a tr/ts limit in the pairing? If it is more than than 20 (or a better number) dif in ts the teams can´t play. This might end up with more coaches not scheduled but I rather have that then all the cry babies conceeding or whining about uneven match ups.
I play an Ogre team myself witch means that my TR is way higher than the TS. The handis have been there to help my opponent on several occasions. I think the handis has been good for the opponent most of the time. But I understand that some of the handis doesn't help out that much.
If we do regulate the dif in ts instead maybe we don't have to see all the sad little coaches out there who play with a 0 RR team just to get uneven games so they can crush their opponents. Oh did I mention that those coaches are sad little ones?  |
|
|
Arktoris
Joined: Feb 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2009 - 09:22 |
|
| johan wrote: | | The game is rarely very good if the rolls on the kick-off table is what decides it. Handicaps increases the randomness of the game, and reduces the skill factor. |
which is a good thing. The less random, the less fun. Without the X-factor, there'd be little reason to play someone much better than you. |
_________________
Hail to Manowar! The latest charioteer to DIE for bloodbowl! - Slain, by Ghor Oggaz |
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2009 - 13:39 |
|
Wait... if the less random, the less fun, does that mean that the more random, the more fun? Then why not decide the match by a coin-toss at start? That would be super-random. And there would be no problems at all playing someone much better than you.
 |
_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”
—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess |
|
Lill-Leif
Joined: Nov 17, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2009 - 17:45 |
|
| Quote: | | And there would be no problems at all playing someone much better than you. |
Better at tossing coins?
I think as it currently is, the X-factor is balanced. |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2009 - 19:10 |
|
No, better at BB.
And obviously, some of us disagree that the so-called X-factor is balanced. |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 25, 2009 - 19:42 |
|
there a clear vote of "no". I wonder if the most votes came from players playing in blackbox.
I at least, find it annoying to get 3 handicaps and play massively TR up. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
|
|
Chaos Draft League R...
Search
