PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
 Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 22:24 |
 
|
| Eddy wrote: | | Again, it's fine for what it does in [R]. It's not fine for a number of reasons for what it's used for in [B]. |
Well I agree that TS needs to be moved as close to perfect in [B] because of all the things its used for in [B].
My big point is that no matter how much discussion, tweaking, changing or all out replacement is done it always will be a system. Thus it will always be a point of contention for coaches who think the system is not "fair" for one reason or another. I am just trying to throw water on the whole discussion by pointing out in the end its a futile discussion that will never be truly solved.
If there are obvious things that need to be tweaked in the TS calculation then go for it and change it because it is used for so much stuff. But are the changes really changing anything? probally not, just shifting the argument to another point. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 22:35 |
|
My answer to the original post is the answer is A.
It ensures fair matchs in R by not allowing very obvious un balanced games to take place, it still can happen in [R] but not to the extreme it would happen with out it.
Obviously in [b] TS is supposed to bring fairness but some coaches do not think so and want some tweaks.
I have never managed my teams based on TS only. The only time I ever even think about TS is when my TR is way above TS (+25pts) then I might make some moves to rectify this. That applies to my Box team also. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 23:02 |
|
You're saying two things.
a) that any system will be broken.
I disagree with that. That's why the "philosophical" question of what is "strength", how it can be measured, and whether or not it needs to introduce side-effects is important.
b) that it's useless to tweak a system to make it better.
I also disagree. TS as it is has been tweaked a lot already, and it's probably a better system than it was. Some people have a beef with philosophy of such a system, but generally speaking, most seem to agree that TS is not "utterly broken". There are a few flaws, some more obvious than others, but generally speaking, it works. It could work better, though. And if we decide to use a system (which is the case on FUMBBL), then the system might as well be as good as possible.
If you think that the discussion is endless and can lead to nothing, why bother participating at all? It seems that whenever such a thread pops up, you come in and say "it's useless" or make off-topic comments. I don't really see the point. Surely, if we're wasting time, you should be doing something else more constructive  |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 23:40 |
|
WOW!!! Eddy brings the thunder and in the end I get accused of being a "wet noodle". You win, Iam picking up my Morg mini and going home. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2009 - 00:02 |
|
Too....tired....to....pwn....you...nooobs.. .... .... friggin.... noobs...  |
_________________
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." |
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2009 - 00:14 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | WOW!!! Eddy brings the thunder and in the end I get accused of being a "wet noodle". You win, Iam picking up my Morg mini and going home. |
Thunder? I don't understand what you mean.
I have tried to address your points. If i misunderstood your points and answered off-mark, then i'm sorry.
As for the last part of my post, well... Isn't it true that in this thread, you've posted that the discussion was useless, and in the last one about +ST and TS, you posted twice or thrice things like "this will reach 20 pages !!!!!!111!!1!!1" without saying anything else? So i'm just saying that, if you think the discussion is useless, simply don't contribute and don't inflict the reading upon yourself. There was nothing offensive in my posts, i assure you. |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2009 - 02:18 |
|
Coming late to this thread but wanted to add my thoughts:
I think TS should be mostly (A), a measure of chance to win next game. But it could be tweaked in a few cases if it's in the game's best interest.
Example:
DP is a skill that's most valuable if you have it on 1-2 players. So on a strict %win basis the cost should go down the more of it you have on your team. But to avoid players from taking too much of it, it might be costed linearly. That creates an incentive to take DP on no more than a few players, which makes the game more fun IMO. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2009 - 11:32 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | That's what Chister wrote:
| sonotChrister wrote: | | The purpose of TS is to fill that gap by providing a quick reference to give you an idea of how strong a team will be next game. |
|
You got that from here? - http://fumbbl.com/help:Strength
You might want to check the page history and see who actually added that section to the page. |
|
|
Timlagor
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2009 - 04:30 |
|
Well there's an easy solution: make the black box truly random -if you get an impossible game then see what you can do to make the most of it.  |
|
|
|
|
| |
Secret League Americ...
Search
