Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
 Posted:
Sep 01, 2016 - 23:26 |
 
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | wouldn't necessarily have to include a discount for injuries. |
Obviously not. I put that there more as an example of how people are ever-industrious towards tweaking things in their favour. But if we had a sort of living TS (as it was called) where power gaming was dealt with as it appeared it could be very good for sure. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 01, 2016 - 23:29 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | However, to me it seems right that coaches should pay a penalty for keeping injuries on the roster .. |
It encourages players' turnover, so yes it's positive in my opinion, especially without Ageing. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 01, 2016 - 23:39 |
|
I agree that some form of TR/TS to deal with powergaming in CRP could be very beneficial, especially for Box. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Sep 01, 2016 - 23:53 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | I agree that some form of TR/TS to deal with powergaming in CRP could be very beneficial, especially for Box. |
To formulate a good system, we'd need access to data and analysis way beyond what is feasible at this point.
Otherwise we're just arbitrarily assigning values based on gut feeling of their in game value. |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2016 - 00:03 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Otherwise we're just arbitrarily assigning values based on gut feeling of their in game value. |
That's exactly what they did when they made Blood Bowl though.
A living TV - starting out at one point - with continuously tweaking, would arguably become a better guide instantly than what we have now, and would only become better.
I don't understand the scepticism. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2016 - 00:52 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | Otherwise we're just arbitrarily assigning values based on gut feeling of their in game value. |
That's exactly what they did when they made Blood Bowl though.
A living TV - starting out at one point - with continuously tweaking, would arguably become a better guide instantly than what we have now, and would only become better.
I don't understand the scepticism. |
Then refer to my first point. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2016 - 00:56 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | JellyBelly wrote: | | I agree that some form of TR/TS to deal with powergaming in CRP could be very beneficial, especially for Box. |
To formulate a good system, we'd need access to data and analysis way beyond what is feasible at this point.
Otherwise we're just arbitrarily assigning values based on gut feeling of their in game value. |
Presumably (at least in theory), similar data could be accessed now to what was used to formulate TS for LRB4 (which, at the time, most people seemed to agree worked very well for matching teams, although the LRB4 handicaps were crap, so coaches were reluctant to accept games down on TS).
A good way to combat min/maxing could be to penalize players that have more than X number of skills for a certain TV level? |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
Medon
Joined: Jan 28, 2015
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2016 - 08:21 |
|
We should turn to the bookmakers, they are always right! Inducements based on the odds at the bookmakers |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2016 - 08:49 |
|
We're never going to agree on what to do. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2016 - 10:36 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Then refer to my first point. |
Too work-intensive  |
|
|
Desultory
Joined: Jun 24, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2016 - 21:21 |
|
|
Traul
Joined: Jun 09, 2013
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 01:51 |
|
| Desultory wrote: | [...]
I think that chart only proves that variance (luck) has more of a part to play the greater the TV difference?? |
You are reading it wrong. A single game has only 3 possible outcomes (let's say -1, 0 and 1) so its variance is bounded to 1 (for 0.5 probability of win/loss and 0 probability of a draw), and with an observed 20% probability of a draw the variance is already 0.8 at 0 TV difference, so there is not much room to grow. The only reason why you see the numbers swing wildly at high TV differences is because there are not enough data to compute reliable averages.
Besides, the variance of the outcome says nothing about the luck vs skill debate: no matter whether the best player/team wins all the time or the game is decided by a coin toss, the variance is the same because in the preparation of the data, putting the best player as player 1 or 2 is a coin toss itself. |
|
|
Desultory
Joined: Jun 24, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2016 - 00:31 |
|
| Traul wrote: | | Desultory wrote: | [...]
I think that chart only proves that variance (luck) has more of a part to play the greater the TV difference?? |
You are reading it wrong. A single game has only 3 possible outcomes (let's say -1, 0 and 1) so its variance is bounded to 1 (for 0.5 probability of win/loss and 0 probability of a draw), and with an observed 20% probability of a draw the variance is already 0.8 at 0 TV difference, so there is not much room to grow. The only reason why you see the numbers swing wildly at high TV differences is because there are not enough data to compute reliable averages.
Besides, the variance of the outcome says nothing about the luck vs skill debate: no matter whether the best player/team wins all the time or the game is decided by a coin toss, the variance is the same because in the preparation of the data, putting the best player as player 1 or 2 is a coin toss itself. |
thank you very much.
christer stated "The chart pretty obviously implies that TV difference has very little effect on actual win rates (mind you, this iteration of the chart doesn't show the effect of inducements, as it's normalized)"
So it doesn't reflect inducements.
Vhrister posted it because of talk of 'unfairness in the blackbox scheduler'.
Can you explain for me how the graph is linked to unfairness? |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 01, 2017 - 03:46 |
|
Black Box scheduler strikes again!
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3873338
This time a 680 TV gap! \o/
Allowing such huge TV gaps makes playing during euro nights less appealing.
Fixing this issue would be easy, pretty please Christer, implement a TV gap cap for the Black Box scheduler.
I play Slann and the reward is getting mismatches. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 01, 2017 - 04:15 |
|
So literally months between incidents. I'll show myself out. |
|
|
|
|
Cindy is back?
Search
