VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
 Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 06:45 |
 
|
| Corvidius wrote: | | Seems ok, although my rating is very low. |
Lower than you expected? How do you feel you perform in B, keeping in mind it is only rating your relative performance with B teams based on racial matchups. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 07:40 |
|
|
KFoged
Joined: Nov 28, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 07:47 |
|
| koadah wrote: | Unlike official CR(Box) it has RandomOracle way ahead of kfoged.  |
And everybody else i think (atleast all them i have checked from the first page) |
|
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 08:00 |
|
| Calthor wrote: | This is partly a good idea, imo. Except for the fact that if one team wins, and the other loses, the rating should go up for the winner, never down (an Elf team should not be punished for 'grinding' his way to a victory, so to speak).
Yet the influence of racial modifiers / racial match-ups (eg. the baseline idea) does have potential. |
I agree here; a 1 TD ahead win is a good win.
That does not need to break the proposal: instead of using the average TD just use the average win/loss, and modify ratings change based on that ratio. So if dwarves beat goblins 9/10, and I play your Dwarves with my goblins 10 times and get 2 wins and 8 losses, this should net me points and lose you some. |
|
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 08:07 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Unlike official CR(Box) it has RandomOracle way ahead of kfoged. |
I think official CR is a progressive thing, isn't it? It only applies to games played since the rating was implemented? If so then that would be a major difference. This rating applies to all matches played by active B teams.
Similarly there's a good chance RandomOracle's rating would go down a bit if TV was being taken into account... though so might several other people's. RandomOracle primarily plays high TV chaos in box, and chaos tends to do best at high TVs against.. everyone... which makes it easier to perform above the average for all TVs.
| KFoged wrote: | | And everybody else i think Wink (atleast all them i have checked from the first page) |
Its pretty safe to say that any coach over 1500 is a pretty profoundly proficient coach, regardless. I suspect RandomOracle's rating, if TV is taken into account, will be in the 1600s, but I could be wrong, and really... what's the difference if you're still better than pretty much everyone?
I'd be interested to hear about cases where someone's rating is much lower or much higher than people would expect for what they've experienced of that person's skill level. |
|
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 08:21 |
|
| the_sage wrote: | | That does not need to break the proposal: instead of using the average TD just use the average win/loss, and modify ratings change based on that ratio. So if dwarves beat goblins 9/10, and I play your Dwarves with my goblins 10 times and get 2 wins and 8 losses, this should net me points and lose you some. |
The fluctuations would be really wild, as dode mentioned, rather than fairly smooth. Additionally, that's back to only being considered "above average" if you win a game. Any race with a win percentage against another that isn't exactly 50% is NOT automatically above average when they win, or below average when they lose, by definition.
Again, these are based on average score differences - if you're falling under the average then that means across all CRP games played in B on fummbl, most coaches score more TDs against that race than you do. The contention is that some people feel "well, I'm still better than they are even if they manage more TDs with the same team". Ok, what is it you do to demonstrate that? Are you saying you could score more often but don't? What exactly do you do in that spare time... make 8-bit pictures by arranging your players on the grid? Make 5-foot passes to farm for SPP? What is it you're doing in that time that says you're a skilled coach, rather than actually scoring, like the majority of other coaches using that team? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 09:08 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: |
I think official CR is a progressive thing, isn't it? It only applies to games played since the rating was implemented? If so then that would be a major difference. This rating applies to all matches played by active B teams. |
What do you mean by active?
Do you mean games since a certain date? 16/01/2011? |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
KFoged
Joined: Nov 28, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 09:22 |
|
Pretty sure that the CR blackbox is for all blackbox games - not just form a date... Like the CR ranked is for all, he did recalculate the number (quit a few times) |
_________________
 |
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 09:32 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: |
The fluctuations would be really wild, as dode mentioned, rather than fairly smooth. Additionally, that's back to only being considered "above average" if you win a game. Any race with a win percentage against another that isn't exactly 50% is NOT automatically above average when they win, or below average when they lose, by definition.
|
The fluctuations would be big for freaky wins and small for predictable wins, which is the point. Say that winning both sides of the match (if I win both dwarf vs goblin and goblin vs dwarf) brings 5 arbitrary points (and on average goblins lose 9 times to every win). Now if I win with dwarves, I gain .5 point. I win with goblins, I gain 4.5 points.
Of course this doesn't have to be the whole system, this can just be the weighting you apply to any other ladder/ranking system.
| VoodooMike wrote: |
Again, these are based on average score differences - if you're falling under the average then that means across all CRP games played in B on fummbl, most coaches score more TDs against that race than you do. The contention is that some people feel "well, I'm still better than they are even if they manage more TDs with the same team". Ok, what is it you do to demonstrate that? Are you saying you could score more often but don't? What exactly do you do in that spare time... make 8-bit pictures by arranging your players on the grid? Make 5-foot passes to farm for SPP? What is it you're doing in that time that says you're a skilled coach, rather than actually scoring, like the majority of other coaches using that team? |
| VoodooMike wrote: |
Are you saying you could score more often but don't?
|
Me, personally? No. The 'best' coaches? Hell yes. That's stalling, and it turns what would be draws into wins, and what would be losses into draws.
So, I would argue that (races and TV used aside) a coach who scores 3 2-1 wins has far superior performance to a coach with two 4-1 wins and one 2-1 loss. This is also why tournaments usually use W/D/L points to determine ranking, and only use TD dif (and cas dif) as tiebreakers.
The fundamental problem between our two views is what utility you choose to ascribe to game outcomes. If you feel TD dif is the parameter coaches should optimize, you are correct to rate as you propose. If you feel W/L ratio is the parameter to optimize, my proposal is more suitable. The reason I propose this as an alternative is that I feel most coaches do the latter. I believe most coaches in competitive divisions play to win (and not maximize TDs), and thus try to score on turn 7/8 and 15/16 if they safely can. This means that the low TD outcome you would devalue is actually those coaches achieving what they are aiming for, which reflects their skill.
Now I enjoy high TD games a lot, so often choose not to stall (which is why I play in rush and pass whenever I get the chance). As a result of this choice, I lose some matches I should tie, and tie some matches I should win. It also means I get many more results where I win with a 2+ TD difference. Your scoring system would rate me higher than equally skilled stalling coaches, while my system would rate me lower.
*edit* didn't read enough, seems many of my points were made by others as well. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 11:35 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | Are you saying you could score more often but don't? What exactly do you do in that spare time... make 8-bit pictures by arranging your players on the grid? Make 5-foot passes to farm for SPP? What is it you're doing in that time that says you're a skilled coach, rather than actually scoring, like the majority of other coaches using that team?
|
Winning the game. That's why so many people take wins over all the TD stuff.
If we have equal points/rating based on wins then we look to TDs, cas etc.
I've even heard that in some cultures running up the score may be considered unsporting.  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 11:57 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | Are you saying you could score more often but don't? What exactly do you do in that spare time... make 8-bit pictures by arranging your players on the grid? Make 5-foot passes to farm for SPP? What is it you're doing in that time that says you're a skilled coach, rather than actually scoring, like the majority of other coaches using that team?
|
To sum it up in a pretty straightforward example:
- One coach is 2-0 up second half, turn 16. He decides to score, and wins 3-0. He gets to suffer the last three LoS blocks in the T16 of his opponent before the game is over.
- Another coach, in the same situation, doesn't score. He wins 2-0 and blocks the hell out of his opponent. He trades his last Td for a better chance to avoid casualties, because he doesn't suffer the last three blocks on LoS.
I would find EXTREMELY debatable that the first coach is a better coach than the second one. They both have their reasons to choose one approach or the other, but stating that one choice is better than the other is false.
And even if 99% of the coaches decide to score and I am the only one who doesn't, my 2-0 doesn't lose its strategic value. In your system, it would result in my victory being rated "below average", though.
Not that it would matter MUCH in the long run, mind you, but that's the primary reason why I don't like your idea that the TD difference is a fair indicator of skill. Your assumption is based on false premises.
Using a composite indicator, involving:
1) TD ratio (scored vs conceded)
2) Blocks (performed vs suffered)
3) Turnovers (forced vs suffered)
4) Some kind of indicator of ball possession
...at the VERY least
would be much more accurate in any formula whose aim is to rate coaching skills and the ability to control and direct the game towards one's goal.
The key word, here, is "control". Often, scoring doesn't give you control over the game. It just gives you a significant advantage, but it also gives the initiative back to your opponent. As weird as it sounds, scoring isn't something you do "mindlessly" in BloodBowl.
Blocking, ball possession, and positioning, on the other hand, DO give you control over the game and its momentum.
In my (limited) experience, the better coaches aren't the ones who outscore the hell out of you... the better coaches are the ones who make you feel like they are in complete control and you're stuck in their net. Even if they are only leading 1-0 and camping near your endzone for 14 turns straight.
Just my two cents. |
_________________
 |
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 12:23 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: |
Similarly there's a good chance RandomOracle's rating would go down a bit if TV was being taken into account... though so might several other people's. RandomOracle primarily plays high TV chaos in box, and chaos tends to do best at high TVs against.. everyone... which makes it easier to perform above the average for all TVs. |
I think the reason for my high rating in this system is due to the fact that chaos is a very popular race. This not only means that there are a lot of not-that-experienced coaches bringing the average of the race down, but also that many chaos coaches focus on killing pixels first, winning games second. Thus, it's probably easier to get a good rating with chaos than with pro elves. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 12:27 |
|
And the fact that your awesome. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 12:31 |
|
Hmm.
I'm 1267 I think, a lot lower than other coaches around my CR are. Then again, I was a large beneficiary of the CR changes originally, so it could be that I'm not that good a coach! I certainly never aim to score more than 2 TDs unless I'm blowing them out on CAS, and I'm perfectly happy with a 1-0.
One thing that is a travesty is Malmir at 1333, he's one of the best coaches on the site!
[edit] Kudos for going away and implementing your ideas though. I don't agree with the method, but it's always better to see evidence than theory [/edit] |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 - 12:45 |
|
| RandomOracle wrote: | | VoodooMike wrote: |
Similarly there's a good chance RandomOracle's rating would go down a bit if TV was being taken into account... though so might several other people's. RandomOracle primarily plays high TV chaos in box, and chaos tends to do best at high TVs against.. everyone... which makes it easier to perform above the average for all TVs. |
I think the reason for my high rating in this system is due to the fact that chaos is a very popular race. This not only means that there are a lot of not-that-experienced coaches bringing the average of the race down, but also that many chaos coaches focus on killing pixels first, winning games second. Thus, it's probably easier to get a good rating with chaos than with pro elves. |
Interesting. So we should probably use orcs.
But really TV has to be in.
Random is in the sweet spot but getting a bonus because chaos stink early on.
Edit:
And probably a bigger bonus for being able to run up the score when all the mens are dead.
Hmm... What did Jimmy get? |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed
Last edited by koadah on %b %15, %2011 - %12:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
