57 coaches online • Server time: 11:33
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Simyin team roster?goto Post Fire this TrollSlaye...goto Post Big things for big $...
 
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Bobs



Joined: Feb 26, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 11:14 Reply with quote Back to top

I understand and applaud the use of tournament weight for the use of smacks, tourneys etc but I was just looking at one of my teams and I wondered about the calculation.

The team :http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=583589

As you can see they have 12 players atm which includes 1 mng and a loner to provide 11 players for the game.

So TW calculates to 1560 = TV 1460 + 40K cash + 60K for mng
What I noticed was if during next game i get 0 money and no skills and no injurys the team will sit at 1500 TW.

So how is it that TW is 1560 before the game when after the game it will possibly drop without at least 60k winnings

Should TW be modified to allow for cases like this. Where a simple swap of journeyman for mng equals the same TW.

Case 2 for clarity : http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=640198

wardancer mng + 2 loners + 140k cash TW 1330
play a game with zero money or skills TW will be 1260

Doesnt this then handicap a team with loners ??

_________________
Stupid is a mean word Mr Cooper
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 11:28 Reply with quote Back to top

What's happening to your cash in both examples?
Bobs



Joined: Feb 26, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 11:35 Reply with quote Back to top

Cash counts as potential players for TW as i understand it so is added into TW calcs.

What Im noticing is especially in the second team TW adds in missing players at full value and the loners that replace them so it inflates the TW beyond what the team is capable of.

Where after the game TW will change by the difference between the missing player and the loner that replaced them because you would need to spend your money to hire the journeyman which cancels out in TW terms (+ journeyman but - cash).

_________________
Stupid is a mean word Mr Cooper
Fela



Joined: Dec 27, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 11:38 Reply with quote Back to top

I think what you're trying to say is that a MNG counts towards TW, even if he will only replace a journeyman, i.e. the MNG will later NOT be a surplus player.

I would tend to agree that either the MNG OR the money needed to actually BUY a journeyman after the match should not be counted in addition to said journeyman for TW calculation.

/Edit: written before your clarification Wink


Last edited by Fela on Jul 19, 2011 - 11:39; edited 1 time in total
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 11:39 Reply with quote Back to top

yup its a fair point really, journeymen shouldnt really count towards TW if the MNG player already does.

_________________
Unnerf Master chef 2014!!!

In reference to Halflings -
Posted by Roland on 2014-10-10 18:30:05 - Look at garions replays, total magic there!
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 11:56 Reply with quote Back to top

Well cash has to count toward TW, there's no point having it otherwise.

I too can't see the point of including journeymen and mngs in the TW value, if that is how it works.
Bobs



Joined: Feb 26, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 11:59 Reply with quote Back to top

I would think subtracting the TV of each journeyman that has a corresponding MNG would make the calc equal out.

_________________
Stupid is a mean word Mr Cooper
the_Sage



Joined: Jan 13, 2011

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 12:01 Reply with quote Back to top

Yes, I (and others, I'm sure,) have commented on this before.
All journeymen add to TW, and this is of course a flawed mechanic. You would only want to count those journeymen that are needed to bring the TOTAL number of players to 11. Any journeymen replacing MNG should not be counted. (which is what BobsArmy ninja'd in =)

Fortunately, TW is not in the rules, so it's something we actually CAN change.
Fela



Joined: Dec 27, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 12:05 Reply with quote Back to top

the_Sage wrote:
Any journeymen replacing MNG should not be counted. (which is what BobsArmy ninja'd in =)


Unless the journeyman's value exceed's the MNG's, in which case the MNG should not count.

(Admittedly, i can only think of one case of that scenario so far Wink)
mr-maverick



Joined: Sep 10, 2010

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 12:06 Reply with quote Back to top

The other question is which should be included as a Journeyman can be of lesser value than that of the MNG player

_________________
-Alcohol doesn't solve any problems, but if you think again, neither does milk.
-The early bird catches the worm, but its the second mouse that gets the cheese.
Fela



Joined: Dec 27, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 12:07 Reply with quote Back to top

harvestmouse wrote:
Well cash has to count toward TW, there's no point having it otherwise.


Well, if you're using that cash to hire promising journeymen after the match, there really is no point in counting journeyman value AND cash spent for him, though.
Hitonagashi



Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 12:11 Reply with quote Back to top

It should add the difference between the player TV and the journey man TV.

Hence - Team TV + Cash + (sum MNG value) - (sum no journeymen equal to no mng value)


Fela: You can use the cash in petty cash too...so if you take out 150k of TV in cash because you have 3 journeymen, you could just take a free wizard in the first game and stick with journeymen los fodder...

_________________
http://www.calculateyour.tv - an easy way to work out specific team builds.
Image
uuni



Joined: Mar 12, 2010
Location: Finland

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 13:12 Reply with quote Back to top

Fela wrote:
Unless the journeyman's value exceed's the MNG's, in which case the MNG should not count.


So should Hitonagashi's suggestion be improved to:

TW = TV+ Cash + foreach (MNG player Pi) : max(TV(Pi) - TV(Journeyman);0) + TV(Journeyman) * (11- players in team)

So, the components of the formula would be the following:

a) TV
Team value as reported by the roster. The journeymen of the team is included already in here.

b) foreach (MNG player Pi) : max(TV(Pi) - TV(Journeyman);0)
The difference of more expensive MNG players versus the appropriate journeymen. If the MNG player is cheaper, nothing is added (0).

c) TV(Journeyman) * (11- players in team)
In case the team has not taken all possible journeymen, count also the potential journeymen.

What do you think? Do you think that it should be some other way or said in some other way?
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 13:24 Reply with quote Back to top

Fela wrote:
harvestmouse wrote:
Well cash has to count toward TW, there's no point having it otherwise.


Well, if you're using that cash to hire promising journeymen after the match, there really is no point in counting journeyman value AND cash spent for him, though.


Well then there is an incentive to buy a proper player. Cash can be spent in many away which will effect the next match as sinkboy stated. The whole point of TW is to calculate your up and coming match and tournament assets.

Most expensive counts a journeyman or a mng sounds like the best option to me.
Fela



Joined: Dec 27, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 19, 2011 - 13:31 Reply with quote Back to top

uuni wrote:
Fela wrote:
Unless the journeyman's value exceed's the MNG's, in which case the MNG should not count.


So should Hitonagashi's suggestion be improved to:

TW = TV+ Cash + foreach (MNG player Pi) : max(TV(Pi) - TV(Journeyman);0) + TV(Journeyman) * (11- players in team)

So, the components of the formula would be the following:

a) TV
Team value as reported by the roster. The journeymen of the team is included already in here.

b) foreach (MNG player Pi) : max(TV(Pi) - TV(Journeyman);0)
The difference of more expensive MNG players versus the appropriate journeymen. If the MNG player is cheaper, nothing is added (0).

c) TV(Journeyman) * (11- players in team)
In case the team has not taken all possible journeymen, count also the potential journeymen.

What do you think? Do you think that it should be some other way or said in some other way?


Formula fails if there are more MNG than journeymen, as for surplus MNG players, only the difference to journeyman would be added.
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
Powered by PNphpBB2 1.2 © 2003 PNphpBB Group
Credits