50 coaches online • Server time: 16:40
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
peikko



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Jun 10, 2009 - 07:10 Reply with quote Back to top

Astarael wrote:
treborius wrote:
SillySod wrote:
[...]I am sure of two things:
- the number of handicaps generated should be based on TR not TS

Silly, could you elaborate on why you think that?


Simple, handicaps in the rulebook go off Team Rating.


So in your mind when dwarfs are playing one point of TS down they deserve to get handicap to even the game because It Says So In The Book where there is no team strenght because it would be paint to calculate on pen and paper? (Elf 161/139 vs 141/138 Dwarf)
treborius



Joined: Apr 05, 2008

Post   Posted: Jun 10, 2009 - 07:24 Reply with quote Back to top

Snappy_Dresser wrote:
What idiot has any faith in the TS system? Seriously?

i believe TS is far from perfect, but still the best measure of a team's strength we have.
(kinda like democracy is far from perfect, but still realistically the best way to make decisions which are fair for most...Wink )

Snappy_Dresser wrote:
Edit: treborius, I am strongly in favour of option 1, some of your other options I think are silly, but we can agree on the first one at least

hmmm, don't get me wrong: i love it when people take my side, but did you see, that option 1 uses TS? Confused
also, if you like 1 (the most radical change in my opinion) which other option do you find silly? (no offense, just curious) - 5 is what we have now, 3 is not having HCs in B and the others (2, 4) are options that are kind of "in between"...
peikko



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Jun 10, 2009 - 07:36 Reply with quote Back to top

Theres couple things with handicaps which trouble myself most:

1) Players missing are penaltized by giving handicap to opponent.

2) Some races keep having lot higher tr than ts like goblins, ogres and halfflings and they end up giving handicaps to opponent.

3) Some lucky teams who roll lots of stats and doubles have their ts boosted way higher than tr, and as added bonus these teams are having handicaps to "even out" they good luck...
treborius



Joined: Apr 05, 2008

Post   Posted: Jun 10, 2009 - 07:39 Reply with quote Back to top

peikko wrote:
(Elf 161/139 vs 141/138 Dwarf)

this is a good example for a defect of the current system imo, but consider even something like this: 161/139 Elf vs 141/144 Dwarf:

currently, if matched at all, the client would allow the Dwarf 1 roll on the HC-table ('cause they are -20TR).
currently, the match-up would be considered by the scheduler at -10TS from the view of the Elf (still well within the cutoff).

imo, it would be much more favorable to have this matchup considered with Elf allowed 1 roll on the HC-table
(HCs based on TS-difference, and TS-difference >=5) and the scheduler considering this match-up roughly even (+/-0TS).
imho, much more suitable match-ups were possible if this was the way things got done (options #1, #2).

if we can't agree on HCs on TS-difference, i'd still prefer the option #3 (to not have HCs at all).
in the example, neither team would get a roll on the HC-table and the scheduler would consider the matchup at TS-5 for the Elf.

treborius wrote:

my order of preference is:

1. have HCs only for TS-mismatches (when the scheduler couldn't find the perfect match) at maybe 5TS / HC at TS=100..150, 6TS / HC at TS=150..200, 8TS / HC at TS=200..250 (or similar)
2. have HCs only for TS-mismatches at 5TS / HC
3. not have HCs at all in the Box
4. have HCs similar as 1., but based on TR instead of TS
5. have HCs similar as 2., but based on TR instead of TS (what we have now).

in my opinion: 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5
sk8bcn



Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Post   Posted: Jun 10, 2009 - 11:40 Reply with quote Back to top

A few couples of points:

1-Red games are those where handis disminish the game quality. Hence, black ones increases those. Choosing an unique path (enable/disable) has thus a pro/negative effect. So I admit that you favor a disabling of handicaps if and only if the game quality is reduced which IMO isn't quite good as it would make it full of exceptions.

2-LRB 5 is upcomming and the 15 TS limit reduced the number of loopsided games thanks to handicap.

3-However, I'd rather play with my 180/140 team a 140/140 one with handi disabled rather than a 150/150 one with handicaps.

4-As handicaps games have a reduced probability in the scheduler, a decimed team has a harder time to find a game.

5-Flings and gobbos may be impossible to start if handis are disabled.

=>In conclusion, both have pros and cons and as LRB draws near and as I am not that much affected with unfair handicaped games, I don't mind Smile

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes
odi



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Jun 10, 2009 - 12:00 Reply with quote Back to top

Deatheart wrote:
yet not all coaches play the same, yes palm coin is a laugh for a handi....


As a skaven player, palmed coin is one of my favorite handies. So I can set up to receive first, with plenty of players. So I will be able to stall vs bashers. So vs most teams I should be 1-0 going to second half. Even if I cant get the ball away from the other team when I'm on the defence (which skaven can usually manage) and since skaven can easily score a 1 turner, even without a natural 1 turner. I have a very good chance for 2-1, if I can keep my players alive Very Happy
Ehlers



Joined: Jun 26, 2006

Post   Posted: Jun 10, 2009 - 12:12 Reply with quote Back to top

as sk8bcn point out, then LRB5 is coming to fumbbl. And would blackbox then not switch to LRB5?
And would this not sort the handicap system since the handicap system in LRB5 is more fair right?
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Jun 10, 2009 - 12:51 Reply with quote Back to top

I think I rather have no handicaps and the TS gap narrowed to 7% of the lower teams TS (with a minimum of 7TS).
sk8bcn



Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Post   Posted: Jun 10, 2009 - 16:51 Reply with quote Back to top

odi wrote:
Deatheart wrote:
yet not all coaches play the same, yes palm coin is a laugh for a handi....


As a skaven player, palmed coin is one of my favorite handies. So I can set up to receive first, with plenty of players. So I will be able to stall vs bashers. So vs most teams I should be 1-0 going to second half. Even if I cant get the ball away from the other team when I'm on the defence (which skaven can usually manage) and since skaven can easily score a 1 turner, even without a natural 1 turner. I have a very good chance for 2-1, if I can keep my players alive Very Happy


Think about it twice. Let's say I give you the ball for a linerat (5TS) for the first play? A play you get anyway with a probability of 50% assuming that everyone wants the ball first. Would you make the trade?

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes
SillySod



Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Post   Posted: Jun 10, 2009 - 18:10 Reply with quote Back to top

treborius wrote:
SillySod wrote:
[...]I am sure of two things:
- the number of handicaps generated should be based on TR not TS

Silly, could you elaborate on why you think that?

SillySod wrote:
- the handicaps arent making those games more or less favourable... the scheduler is

the scheduler can only make the games as balanced as the best possible match-ups are, so the question really is for a given match-up (with a mismatch of 7 TS and 15TR, for example) whether we prefer that game to be played with that mismatch or whether we would like to have HCs assigned to one side or the other based on either TS or TR to possibly make it *more* balanced Smile


The rules state that handicaps are based on TR and say nothing about TS. TS is not supposed to be used for the same purposes as TR. Its likely that changing the system will have unknown consequences on teambuilding, especially at the 200+ level.

It would make a certain amount of sense to apply handicaps after determining the matches as long as it has no actual effect on the scheduling of the matches. I can see that this would push teams closer together resulting in more fair games.... I guess you're using the handicaps more like LRB5 inducements than LRB4 handicaps.

peikko wrote:
Theres couple things with handicaps which trouble myself most:

1) Players missing are penaltized by giving handicap to opponent.

2) Some races keep having lot higher tr than ts like goblins, ogres and halfflings and they end up giving handicaps to opponent.

3) Some lucky teams who roll lots of stats and doubles have their ts boosted way higher than tr, and as added bonus these teams are having handicaps to "even out" they good luck...


None of those are problems with handicaps in Blackbox. Christer is either smarter or luckier* than he looks and thus already has this covered. If you are weaker but have an inflated TS for any one of those reasons handicaps will mean that you are likely to be scheduled against a team who is not only as weak as yourself but also a little bit weaker because the handicaps are taken into account during the scheduling (they add 5TS each to any opposition). Essentially they have no effect on the balance of games - they are simply a thing that gets attatched to certain teams, much as if they had purchased a wizard.

Personally I dont have a great deal of faith in the TS system... its very good generally but breaks down in numerous areas. This isnt really important to the handicap issue though.

* you never know, monkeys with typewriters and all that

_________________
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."
treborius



Joined: Apr 05, 2008

Post   Posted: Jun 10, 2009 - 19:38 Reply with quote Back to top

SillySod wrote:
It would make a certain amount of sense to apply handicaps after determining the matches as long as it has no actual effect on the scheduling of the matches. I can see that this would push teams closer together resulting in more fair games.... I guess you're using the handicaps more like LRB5 inducements than LRB4 handicaps.


i guess you can say that i'm viewing handis like (random) inducements - *if* they make any sense in a Box environment, that's what they should be viewed as, i think.
if people oppose applying HCs to TS-differences (diverting from lrb), i'd definetly favor to not apply HCs in the Box at all.

whether or not this discussion will be obsolete with lrb5, i don't know - i've yet to play my first (true) lrb5-match Wink

EDIT: i agree on TS not being a completely trustful measure of a team's strength - it's still the best measure we currently have, though (i'd just love to see TS being overhauled, as you suggested some time ago) and the Box is using it for determining match-ups (despite it not being part of lrb Wink ) and applying HCs according to TS-difference (after match-ups) would improve match-ups, i think.
TheCetusProject



Joined: May 25, 2004

Post   Posted: Jun 10, 2009 - 20:14 Reply with quote Back to top

I would like the scheduler to look at a matchup, give it a score assuming no handicaps, and then give it a score assuming handicaps, and taking the best score. Then you play with or without handicaps depending on which gives the best score. This hopefully would make matchups fairer in general. It also complies with LRB.
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