Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
 Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 12:22 |
 
|
Well I guess if this concept goes further (and Christer seems positive about the idea), the next discussion is on which scale the "decay" takes place.
Will it give love only to people who play very frequently, or those who play say once a week or so? (Both have their advantages and disadvantages). |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 12:27 |
|
| Gran wrote: | | CircularLogic wrote: | I wouldn`t want to see decay happening to active coaches. Those 'risk' their ranking in every match and a streak of 8-10 bad games can easily cost you 12+ BWR points.
When I thought about a decay (which I became convinced isn`t such a hot idea), the best way would be to check in regular intervalls (1st of each month?) for inactive coaches. Those coaches that are inactive and above BWR 150 lose 0.5 BWR. The sum of the BWR removed in such a way is then divided up onto the active population, so that you don`t have BWR points leaving the closed system. |
No, that's not a good idea. I understand that loosing that much BWR in one fell swoop will make some of the more competitive coaches nervous, but your alternative is just too open to exploitation. For one thing you only need one game a month to stay up there, and if you put that system into practise today JackDaniels could well be getting medals for almost half a year without a single game. The whole point - as I see it - of a decay on the scale Christer suggested is that medals are awarded for what you did this month, not on how great that streak you had during Christmas was. It also means that there is a larger group of players who can potentially get medals, which would be good for the division as a whole. |
I ignored the medal thingy, because I don`t fee it`s a good thing for the box. I just commented on the suggestion to have a decay mechanism (which again I`m not convinced of).
If you need medals for a monthly competition, simply make it like the championship (cept ignore the BWR in the scoring, so it`s not as ridiculous as the R championship). |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 13:00 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Gran wrote: | | CircularLogic wrote: | I wouldn`t want to see decay happening to active coaches. Those 'risk' their ranking in every match and a streak of 8-10 bad games can easily cost you 12+ BWR points.
When I thought about a decay (which I became convinced isn`t such a hot idea), the best way would be to check in regular intervalls (1st of each month?) for inactive coaches. Those coaches that are inactive and above BWR 150 lose 0.5 BWR. The sum of the BWR removed in such a way is then divided up onto the active population, so that you don`t have BWR points leaving the closed system. |
No, that's not a good idea. I understand that loosing that much BWR in one fell swoop will make some of the more competitive coaches nervous, but your alternative is just too open to exploitation. For one thing you only need one game a month to stay up there, and if you put that system into practise today JackDaniels could well be getting medals for almost half a year without a single game. The whole point - as I see it - of a decay on the scale Christer suggested is that medals are awarded for what you did this month, not on how great that streak you had during Christmas was. It also means that there is a larger group of players who can potentially get medals, which would be good for the division as a whole. |
I ignored the medal thingy, because I don`t fee it`s a good thing for the box. I just commented on the suggestion to have a decay mechanism (which again I`m not convinced of).
If you need medals for a monthly competition, simply make it like the championship (cept ignore the BWR in the scoring, so it`s not as ridiculous as the R championship). |
Championship style sounds good. Everyone starts even at the beginning of the month so more people feel that they have a chance. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Zuul
Joined: Nov 15, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 13:06 |
|
With the decay suggestion, maybe it would be a good idea to put a lower bound on the number of games required to have none/minimal decay? Don't have an upper bound as we don't want to necessarily reward those who do have the extra time in their lives - maybe make it an average of 1 game a week over a period of 4 weeks with the decay happening at the end of the 4th week? The less games you play (under that minimal bound) the greater your decay towards 150. |
|
|
Zuul
Joined: Nov 15, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 13:08 |
|
Oh, an addendum. I think the medals should be given out based on success with each race and be representative of each. It provides a challenge to people to make the box more diverse as it will be easier to achieve a medal with, say, Norse than it is with Orcs. It will also provide people with the "collect em all" possibility to get all 21 gold medals (or just a medal with all races because would be good to keep gold/silver/bronze). If we place it on BWR only then it will only encourage less diversity. |
|
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 13:16 |
|
| Zuul wrote: | | ... as we don't want to necessarily reward those who do have the extra time in their lives |
Why not? I am in the camp of not playing all that often, so I prefer a slower decay, however, wouldn't we want to encourage and reward people for devoting their lives to FUMBBL? After all, the more games that are played, the better the site is?
The flip side is, it is desirable that large numbers of players can compete for the medals, not just those that play the most, otherwise you might disinterest the moderate players from competing at all. |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
Shrap
Joined: Sep 18, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 15:25 |
|
I like the start over every month/whatever time period suits us method of decay.
with a min number of games played to be at like 4 a month maybe? |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 15:54 |
|
I think that if the rating system does change to some kind of decay there should definitely be an all-time list so people like JackDaniels can remain top of the heap in some form. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 16:11 |
|
| jimmyfantastic wrote: | | I think that if the rating system does change to some kind of decay there should definitely be an all-time list so people like JackDaniels can remain top of the heap in some form. |
That would be (2) of PurpleChest's list. Each coach listed with the highest BWR he ever reached. |
|
|
clarkin
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 16:24 |
|
Yeah I'd love to see that list (top BWR ever achieved). And once we had that I think it would make a lot of sense to change the existing list to only show coaches who've played in the past month. As someone said even 1 game/month is enough for your rating to change  |
|
|
BeeRTRuCK
Joined: Sep 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 16:35 |
|
Why not try to use the BWR to encourage diversity?
Base decay not just on games played, but also on races activated during the period? Christer's 50% rubber band back to 150, could be perhaps modified where 0-5 races during the month was a 50% rubber band, 5-10 (30%) etc
Decay may happen once per fortnight, month etc, but the rate of the decay is determined by the racial makeup of the teams the player has activated in the box during the month.
Only activating orcs/dorf/chaos would result in a higher rate of decay than activating all 21 races during the month. The numbers and makeup (light and dark side) of races activated would have to be decided,and there influence on decay, but ultimately can lead to a handicap system, where people will be encouraged to play less popular box races for greater reward. |
|
|
freak_in_a_frock
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 16:50 |
|
What about coaches that only activate necros, or elves etc. Why punish these coaches. Sorry but i deeply believe that there should not be any punishment for playing your race of choice, no matter what that race is.
And before i get accused of being biased, i would assume that most coaches on here know i favour necros above any of the other races. |
|
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 16:52 |
|
| BeeRTRuCK wrote: | Why not try to use the BWR to encourage diversity?
|
An interesting concept.
One problem with your model is that you need to individually play a lot of games each month to get that diversity. Also, lots of coaches like to develop just one or two teams.
I like the idea of encouraging diversity, but I understand that many coaches do not. I suggest an alternative anyway.
Make an addition to the BWR gain for wins that is inversely proportional to the number of activations of that race over that month, while making an addition to any BWR losses proportional to the number of activations of that race. This would tend to encourage people to play more unfavourable races. The bonus can be a small or a large one, depending on how much how want to encourage diversity. (That is, there would be a base BWR change, irrespective of racial popularity, and a smaller bonus depending on racial popularity). This way coaches can stick with one team, but are encouraged to make that one team a rarer one. As the diversity is improved (due to coaches seeking a racial bonus), the differences between the bonuses will tend to be worth less. The maximum bonus could be around 5% as an example. |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
freak_in_a_frock
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 17:43 |
|
If you want diversity in the box create it yourself. 'Let he without sin cast the first stone'.
The majority of coaches going on and on about racial diversity have very few box teams, and those that they do have tend to be the very races that they are complaining about playing against. Meanwhile those of us that actually do have a range of teams in the box seem quite happy with the diversity.
I repeat why should a coach be punished for playing their favourite race, just because it is also a popular race? If the box was full of elf teams would people be complaining about the lack of diversity then? People don't mean lack of diversity, what they really mean is too many bashing teams. It is a subtle, and yet important difference. |
|
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 17:46 |
|
| freak_in_a_frock wrote: | If you want diversity in the box create it yourself. 'Let he without sin cast the first stone'.
|
Sure, no worries. I was just throwing an idea out there. |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
