Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Tinkywinky wrote: | | C) Not lose players (Making high AV-teams preferable) |
Funny that you should say that.. Looking at the list of the highest rated teams, I'd say that elves are preferrable. Currently, there are 9 high-av teams among the top 30, with the first one being at 8th place, just after a halfing (!) team.
The differences between my suggestion and [U] are:
- LRB only races. Some people seem to want this
- More limited choices of opponents, reducing the "cherry picking". Your TR280 team won't be able to play against TR170 halflings, even if the halflings challenge them.
But yes, you're right. The focus of this division would be more to survive games than to win them, which would be the major difference from [R]. A group of coaches are not interested in the "ranking race" and feel that it brings forward the worst in people. This would be an attempt to create a competetive environment for those coaches.
Assuming that TR is chosen as the yardstick (which is likely looking at the replies in this thread), it will also produce information on how well the TR system works in the long run. If, after some time, we end up with 80% CD teams at the top, there might be a reason to suspect that the TR system benefits high AV, multi-skilled teams in the long run. This is something that the current divisions can not provide. |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
May 01, 2004 - 01:28 |
 
|
| Quote: |
Funny that you should say that.. Looking at the list of the highest rated teams,
|
That's because in an open setting you can cherry pick your way to survival. How realistic is it when 80% of your matches are played against other elves. I doubt this ladder would not do anything to change that.
I would suggest taking a little more time to see that the majority of FUMBBLERs think is still missing in FUMBBL and then create a division to meet that need. Otherwise you may put yourself through alot of work for nothing. Because basically all you are really doing is creating another tab on the "Tables" database for this division and sorting by Rating (or STR).
Now, put something in there that says you have to play X number of races before you play the same race twice or something along those lines and then you can take some of the cherry picking out of open and really see who the good coaches are. |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
ChrisB
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2004 - 02:01 |
|
Make it into groups of 25 like the winnings table......
You could always have a heavy and light division!
Heavy: any team with armour 9 or Str 4, your usual orcs and chaos.
Light: Armour 7 and 8 teams and no big guys (except for stunty teams?) |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2004 - 19:14 |
|
| Mully wrote: | | Now, put something in there that says you have to play X number of races before you play the same race twice or something along those lines and then you can take some of the cherry picking out of open and really see who the good coaches are. |
That's a very interesting idea, however it might be hard to realize.
Imagine: "bb lfg against an amazon team"
Perhaps, merely brainstorming from my side, teams could be allowed to play teams within +/-10 TR, but can only advance to a new level once they have won against each other race once or so. |
|
|
Colin
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2004 - 19:29 |
|
There needs to be an incentive to win, that's for sure. Ladder competitions as I understand them are where eveyone is listed on the ladder, and rise by beating higher coaches and displacing them in the ladder. How this works in a situation where teams play other teams that are within a certain rating of them, I'm not sure. Perhaps, as you say, there would be multiple ladders for different ratings bands. Teams move to different ladder bands when their team advances to a certain stage. Coaches receive recognition for defending their position at the top of any of the bands. I still haven't thought it through - it's complicated to work out in my head. Perhaps coaches could contribute ideas, and we have a poll on the best ones? |
|
|
Colin
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2004 - 19:50 |
|
An alternative idea I've just had is to have only one table, but players can only challenge up by a certain number of places. Whether this would create a table with the lower rated teams at the bottom, and higher ones at the top, I'm not sure. The first few games of the division would be open, to establish some sort of order. Coaches would receive credit for how long they remain at the top of the ladder, and how many times they get there. This system would benefit from coaches being allowed more than one team, as Factions did.
A challenge system would be necessary, as long as the challenge comes from the lower rated team's coach; they need to beat better teams to advance. |
_________________
Join The Cult of Tzeentch, mutate randomly! | Hug a newb! Join the Faculty of Academy Instructors! |
|
Tinkywinky
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2004 - 23:46 |
|
| Quote: | | Funny that you should say that.. Looking at the list of the highest rated teams, I'd say that elves are preferrable. Currently, there are 9 high-av teams among the top 30, with the first one being at 8th place, just after a halfing (!) team. |
I actually checked this before I wrote. The thing is: it isn't very smart to have a high TR, it gives you handicaps. High AV teams can get by with fewer players = lower TR. + The cherrypicking issue of course.
| Quote: | | But yes, you're right. The focus of this division would be more to survive games than to win them, which would be the major difference from [R]. A group of coaches are not interested in the "ranking race" and feel that it brings forward the worst in people. This would be an attempt to create a competetive environment for those coaches. |
I have such a hard time to understand these kind of coaches. I remember when I played a few tabletop matches last summer as we waited for all coaches to arrive from their colleges. One of the guys repeatetdly said: "it doesn't matter if I don't win" before attempting an extra comp before scoring etc. The important thing was the development of the team. I asked what he was going to do with all the SPP and he didn't really have an answer. What happened was that his team got so much better that no one wanted to play against it anymore (he played more games then all others). + Then the real (closed) league started anyway.
In fumbbl:s open format it is a great illusion that you somehow get a better chance of winning by developing your team. The thing is: you don't. You will always get to play opponents of equal TR/TS not equal number of games! This is why I mostly play in closed tournaments and also like the old ladder. You either play in a setting where the development counts or you play in one where it doesn't and skill (and luck of course) is the only thing that matter in a particular game as the teams are eqyally strong.
I wonder if the coaches that this is aimed at will really appreciate the new ladder. Maybe it will burst their bubble when they realise that it isn't fun to just accumulate SPP for it's own sake? And maybe that is Christer reason for changing the ladder to it's polar opposite so people will realise that it really isn't what they want? 
I think I just came up with something. The big problem with faction is that it's still open so it doesn't exactly encourage people to develope violent teams. When it started faction was immensly popular as people thought it was going to be "the big league" where you could test how good you are. Then after a while it degenerated into who could find the most games (not dwarfs, that's for sure).
I'd really like a no-development faction. It would really be a test of peoples coaching abilitys. The only question is of course... will people play it? A version of this that tends more to the suggestions presented here is to make give the higher divisions a higher TR = a couple of raises and skills.
Finally... I think the best way to spare Christer from unneceseary work would be to discuss a wild array of ideas here and then make a poll at the start screen and let people show what they would be most interested in. |
|
|
MixX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2004 - 23:58 |
|
all I can say is: I like the old ladder, but it's quite hard finding games in it... |
|
|
cjohnsto
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2004 - 04:37 |
|
They way colin describes his ideas of a ladder is exactly as I see one. You can play it without a challenge facility but then you have to add rules like: if you play down and win you advance one rank. This means that if the people above you will not play you, you can still advance albeit slowly by playing against those who want to advance against you. This way ranking is not tied to either TR or STR but instead based upon the number of wins.
You can play anyone within 5% of the size of the leage places of you in either direction (rounded up to the nearest 10/20/50). (Gives roughly ten smooth bands from the perspective of any 1 team)
Win: your rank += max(((thier rank) - (your rank))/k, g)
Loss: your rank -= max(((thier rank) - (your rank))/k, g)
EDIT: This assumes that higher ranks are better. Also you could make the rank spot unique by pushing others out of the way based on some second ranking criteria, again you could even hide the internals and just give a position in the field 1st....1001st
where k is the stability factor, g is the gain/loss in rank for an expected win (expected as in higher rank wins)
I also suggest that STR/TR is hidden for this type of tournament and handicaps are off. This will make the best team for winning move to the top of the ladder.
You can still get the problem of teams not getting games but it will be reduced by being able to play down or up to advance. This will never be solved until some sort of challenging system comes in. (not very likely)
If one does come in for this system, not playing the game in a set amount of time should result in the lower team moving g up (assuming the challenger is the lower team). Don't consider it a loss or win on either teams part. This has the benifit of not hurting the away team directly and giving the challenger a benifit for waiting out the challenge time.
What do you think? |
|
|
theopacman
Joined: Jan 26, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2004 - 04:51 |
|
My two cents worth:
have a look at how the REBBL pbembbl handles its challenge ladder.
It's based on the world chess ranking system.
So beating teams higher on the ladder than you nets you more ranking points than teams lower than you
AND if you don't play there is a diminishing points part
so if those cherry pickers want to risk declining challenges then if they don't get a gamme they will start to slip down the ladder.
TR/TS don't realy come into it. |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| cjohnsto wrote: | Win: your rank += max(((thier rank) - (your rank))/k, g)
Loss: your rank -= max(((thier rank) - (your rank))/k, g)
|
This is pretty much how it works right now:
Win:
[your score] += max(1, round(([their score] - [your score])/2))
[their score] -= 1
Tie:
[your score] += max(0, round(([their score] - [your score])/4))
[their score] += max(0, round(([your score] - [their score])/4))
Loss:
[your score] -= 1
[their score] += max(1, round(([your score] - [their score])/2))
As you can see, the difference is that you only lose 1 point in a loss, and that there is a special case for ties.
One of the problems with this type of scoring is that it's strategically bad to play against teams that are lower on the ladder than you, as you have only 1 point to gain in such games. Therefore, the current ladder system restricts the games you can play by not allowing you to play against "higher" opponents twice in a row. So, essentially, you must play against an equal or lower team at least every other game.
Another problem is that the top team has no reason to play at all really, since they gain very little and would just give your opponent a chance to gain alot.
Ofcourse, to prevent this, there could be a periodical deterioration of scores, say -1 (or -10% maybe? Rounding up obviously) per week. Given the popularity of the faction medals, something similar could be set up for ladder teams (storing the top 10 each week).
Ofcourse, the big question is if adding progression to the ladder is enough to make it popular again. |
|
|
Uber
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2004 - 10:26 |
|
I've got an interesting ladder concept. The ranking would simply be based on the team's current streak. The goal would be to win the most games in a row. There should also be some rules to prevent the top teams from picking on weak teams, let's say if you're in the top 50 you'd have to play teams within that range. I'm not sure how that would evolve in the long term, but something like that could be interesting. When you'd take down the top team, they'd have to start at the bottom again. Who likes the idea? |
_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict. |
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2004 - 04:14 |
|
Divisional Purpose: To make an LRB compliant division for coaches who don't want to play the "Coach Rank Hunting Game" and don't like the "corrupt" nature of [U]. In other words a fun LRB league.
Divisional Focus: Make the division focus on winning the Blood Bowl and the other Major Tournaments.
This (and the challenge system) is one of the few things in the LRB that FUMBBL doesn't have. I don't think the Major Tournaments belong in [R] as some of the prizes are pretty sick and would break the Coach Rank Hunting Game. Four annual Major Tournaments would give you something to build your team for. It would be "pure" as only LRB teams would be permitted. Coaches wouldn't have to worry about ranking and could focus on building for the Blood Bowl. I think the above addresses the purpose of this division.
Options:
-Implement the challenge system. (Probably a long term goal).
-Allow a few Minor Tournaments for the less hardcore BB coaches.
-The idea of rungs could be used to classify minor tournaments.
-Implement Rungs so coaches can't bash on some weakling teams to prepare for the Blood Bowl.
-Use a scoring system to create Rung Champions (I liked the Belts idea that Bunny Puncher was using in his Lost Vegas League). Maybe have a single monthly match between the two highest point-getters in each rung.
-Icons! I like the little medals in Faction. Maybe you can add icons for belts or other accomplishments: A Circled Cherry with a Line Through It (if a team plays every race once), Fireworks (if a coach scores 5 TDs in a game), Severed Head (if a team gets 5 casualties in a game), etc.
-Implement the yardage stats as it would be a fresh division.
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
Immense Stunty Tournament |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
AsperonThorn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2004 - 18:42 |
|
| Evo wrote: |
-Implement the challenge system. (Probably a long term goal).
|
I am a large proponent of this, the problem being is implementation (which since the fall of the original Anarchist Tourney I have put a lot of thought into.) I loved the original Anarchist league, but that began to falter if someone "didn't have time for a match" etc. Or often people just wouldn't answer Pm's (I, myself, got tired of showing up to challenges in which my challenger didn't show.) On a grander scale, in which, fumbbl itself would actually reward the division the "abuse" could only esculate, in my opinion.
The only way I can see it working is:
| Code: |
A)to hardcode the challenges into the site in which one team would challenge another by clicking a button and
hence locking both teams until the game takes place.
B)Upon creation of the team, hardcode the coaches availability.
C)Upon issuing the challenge the challenger chooses from the available times of the challenged 3 possible times.
D)The challenged confirms one, or if for some reason or another can't make the times he put as available it is
his responsibility to deny, or choose from the challengers available times. (back and forth, twice, after that
it is considered that no suitable time can be reached.)
E)If within a week (countdown from the time the challenge was issued) the game does not take place, Then:
1) In the case that one person showed up and the other didn't a concession (I think Bowlbot can confirm
this) Real Life is not an excuse, if you had a real life issue that kept you from making a game than a
concession on fumbbl is the least of your worries, and just suck it up.
2) In the case that no good time can be arranged. The challenge can be withdrawn.
F) Games can, of course, be played at some time other than the scheduled time (in the case that you happen to
notice that you are both on at the same time.) |
Of course it is easy to say all those things, because I am not the one doing the coding, or the enforcing, but I think if there were ever to be a challenge system it would have to be entirely automated like the rest of the site in order to keep the headache out of the admins hands.
Asperon Thorn |
|
|
Buttercup
Joined: Sep 24, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2004 - 19:01 |
|
Personally, I like challenge-based ladder systems where you can only challenge upwards. Obviously, with a world-wide league like fumbbl it's difficult to schedule matches, so that might not be possible (although some tournaments seem to do ok with it...).
With a simple ladder structure, it doesn't matter what your TR/SR/Ranking is, all that's important is your place on the ladder (which starts by time of signup imo).
I realize there would be a lot of coding involved, but check out Case's ladder at http://www.igl.net/ for some ideas maybe?
Buttercup |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
