FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

VoodooMike

Joined: Nov 07, 2010

Posted: Dec 13, 2011 - 13:26

koadah wrote:

Though if you get nothing for beating goblins etc many will refuse to play them in [R] and would give people the hump in [B ].

You wouldn't get nothing for beating goblins, your rating change would simply be based on how well you did against goblins relative to how well teams of your race typically do against goblins.

If your Chaos Dwarf team gives a Goblin team a sound thrashing, but CDs typically do give Goblin teams a sound thrashing, then your ratings won't change a lick. If you give them a harder thrashing than they usually get, then it goes up! If those sneaky goblins managed to score more TDs on you than they normally can against a CD team then his rating goes up and yours goes down because... well.. what the hell were you doing?

koadah wrote:

Maybe we're better off calling this something other than CR. MR?
The goals may not be the same as the goals for CR.

Sure, we can call it anything - its not meant as a replacement for or challenge to CR, as I said, it is simply an idea about how we can possibly rate coaching skill while taking into account minmaxing and cherrypicking, which seem to be common concerns in other ratings that might be taken as representing coach skill (whether that is their intention or not).

JimmyFantastic wrote:

To be fair to dode I think he meant chaos vs dwarfs where both teams are 2k+ chaos are big favourites whereas at 1k tv the dwarfs are favourites. Therefore someone could exploit your system by sweetspotting to take advantage of this kind of thing.

I know what he meant - the problem is that as you divide the data into smaller and smaller pieces, the confidence interval will get larger and larger, making the resulting averages less and less predictively useful. Currently there isn't enough data at most TV differences to make some people satisfied about anything said about averages at that level... imagine cutting that data into 24 pieces before looking at it.

pythrr wrote:

what's wrong with Christer's system?

I'm more and more convinced you don't actually read threads before you post to them.

Raughri

Joined: Oct 11, 2011

Posted: Dec 13, 2011 - 13:59

My only criticism of the current system is if you lose to a player who is a considerably higher rank than you, you lose as many points as if you lost heavily to someone who is similar rank. I think team TV and CR of the opposition coach should be taken into question (i.e. if you are regularly losing to better coaches with higher TV teams, it should not impact your CR as much as if you are losing regularly to worse coaches with lower TV teams, if that makes sense).

If the system already does this, I apologise and will head to the banned box for rolling snake eyes on a foul attempt.

VoodooMike

Joined: Nov 07, 2010

Posted: Dec 13, 2011 - 14:16

Raughri wrote:

My only criticism of the current system is if you lose to a player who is a considerably higher rank than you, you lose as many points as if you lost heavily to someone who is similar rank. I think team TV and CR of the opposition coach should be taken into question (i.e. if you are regularly losing to better coaches with higher TV teams, it should not impact your CR as much as if you are losing regularly to worse coaches with lower TV teams, if that makes sense).

This isn't meant as a new place to complain about the CR system, it's about the idea of creating a coach skill rating, how it might be done, and so on. The CR system isn't necessarily about determining a measure of the coach's skill - it rates their recent performance.

You can find a discussion of the current CR system in this thread.

Corvidius

Joined: Feb 15, 2011

Posted: Dec 13, 2011 - 14:16

I think the idea is interesting but wouldn't there be diminishing returns? As people push for greater victories then the average rises and they have to take greater risks for the same rewards or am i simply being daft? I would consider solid consistant play to be a better benchmark to set.

Hitonagashi

Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Posted: Dec 13, 2011 - 14:24

VM, simply put, the idea is nice, but TD margin in no way indicates the skill of a coach. You can have a VMTD rating, that indicates how good you are at winning by large margins, but that doesn't mean much aside from your ability to win big.

I don't know how you could solve this...the true measure of a good coach is their ability to win when the dice are going against them...but given as you can't get any of that information from the match report, it's hard to measure.

[edit]

Actually, what I said about TD margin..that's untested.
I could make the hypothesis that the average number of TD's scored per game is uncorrelated with the current CR of the coach, but I'm pretty sure that assertion would hold.

[/edit]

pythrr

Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Posted: Dec 13, 2011 - 14:40

VoodooMike wrote:

pythrr wrote:

what's wrong with Christer's system?

I'm more and more convinced you don't actually read threads before you post to them.

Really boring and repetitive ones, no.

pythrr

Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Posted: Dec 13, 2011 - 14:41

Also, why do you care about the system so much, seeing that you don't (and never have) play any games?

A serious question.

_________________

Corvidius

Joined: Feb 15, 2011

Posted: Dec 13, 2011 - 14:47

pythrr wrote:

Also, why do you care about the system so much, seeing that you don't (and never have) play any games?

A serious question.

The idea isn't just applicable to Fumbbl though and it's just an idea not an attack on other systems.

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Dec 13, 2011 - 14:55

Hitonagashi wrote:

VM, simply put, the idea is nice, but TD margin in no way indicates the skill of a coach. You can have a VMTD rating, that indicates how good you are at winning by large margins, but that doesn't mean much aside from your ability to win big.

I don't know how you could solve this...the true measure of a good coach is their ability to win when the dice are going against them...but given as you can't get any of that information from the match report, it's hard to measure.

[edit]

Actually, what I said about TD margin..that's untested.
I could make the hypothesis that the average number of TD's scored per game is uncorrelated with the current CR of the coach, but I'm pretty sure that assertion would hold.

[/edit]

I think it is covered in Mike's response to me. The way I understand it you deserve a bonus for doing better than the average.

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed

happygrue

Joined: Oct 15, 2010

Posted: Dec 13, 2011 - 14:58

I think it's quite an interested idea. It seems that the "best" way to measure coach skill is to compare all kinds of details of the match in what is probably a nearly impossible task. I agree with Hito that abstracting that to just measuring TD difference is not a true measure of coach skill - but I agree with VM that it is better than simply using who won.

Some problems with this idea:

1. Is there enough CRP data to implement this? Probably not. Until such time as some basic TV distinctions could be made (4-5 categories maybe?) it seems likely that players would be able to do crazy things with zons at low TV and chaos at high TV etc.

2. Blowouts are going to happen, and be annoying for the loser, and really not be measured by this well at all. If one elf team score 4-0 against another it is sometimes going to be coach skill and sometimes dice playing the larger role there. I agree with VM that over time that is going to average out, but it doesn't change the fact that if you are measuring score that sometimes you are going to get whacked big time for a loss that you couldn't do anything about. Then again, since we all have these games and sometimes great coaches can tie them or keep them to 2-0 blowouts, maybe I'm over thinking this...

Anyway, I like the idea overall. If gobos or flings can manage a tie against dwarves then that is something to celebrate, screw winning percentages! Wink

Were_M_Eye

Joined: Sep 24, 2007

Posted: Dec 13, 2011 - 16:26

I belive that winning a game is far more important then how much you won it with. But VoodooMike's suggestion might make for more interesting games when people go for td:s instead of stalling away a whole half.

_________________
Zlurpcast, the third best blood bowl podcast in the world.

divino77