Tommi
Joined: May 17, 2004
|
 Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 13:43 |
 
|
How about a simple table to replace the old CR system:
Winner team over 40 stronger than losers: no benefit for winner
Winner team over 30 stronger than losers: gets 0.02% of losers CR
Winner team over 20 stronger than losers: gets 0.05% of losers CR
Winner team over 10 stronger than losers: gets 0.1% of losers CR
Winner team about same strength: gets 0.2% of losers CR.
Winner team over 20 weaker than losers: gets 0.4% of losers CR
If loser CR is over 10 lower than winners, move one step upwards.
If loser CR is over 25 lower than winners, move 3 steps upwards.
A tie is a win for the coach with lower CR, but move a step upwards.
1. This way there is always the same amount of CR, it just changes owners.
2. A table is more in the spirit of BB.
3. Easier to understand the system.
4. You really benefit playing against equal or stronger coaches.
Also, I would like a feature to the gamefinder, which would show how CR would change from a tie, win or a lose against the opponent 'picked' by the gamefinder. - can be implemented separately - |
|
|
Wizard
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 13:46 |
|
no matter what system is in place - someone will complain... |
_________________
"As long as one person lives in darkness then it seems to be a responsibility to tell other people." |
|
DreadClaw
Joined: Nov 17, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 13:56 |
|
And who cares about coach rating? It's about the fun of the games! |
_________________
Death be not proud. Though Some have called thee Mighty and Dreadful Thou art not so. |
|
Laviak
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 14:02 |
|
I'd suggest having a good look into the math behind the existing CR system. The main reason that I prever it to your proposal is that rather than having 'steps' (at 10, 20, 30, 40 CR), it is a smooth progression over the whole scale. This prevents people from always trying to (for example) pick games at 9.9CR less than theirs, or 10.1 greater than theirs. |
_________________
We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!. |
|
Candlejack
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 14:04 |
|
well.. the weaker coaches will benefit from playing stronger.. but the stronger will not benefit from playing the weaker ones.. so the weaker ones will not very likely get that many matches against stronger coaches.. |
_________________
--
The Sanity Resort |
|
tza
Joined: Aug 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 14:05 |
|
I'd slap you for even bringing up CR on the gamefinder...you that horny for CR pts? do away with CR entirely ffs |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 14:08 |
|
The existing formula overestimates CR over TS by a huge amount.
2 Examples:
1) If I play an average not too bad coach (CR 155) I am expected to have a 0.500-rate with my TS150 team against TS 242. That´s what the system is expecting from me.
2) If I want to play an even game with a TS150-team, I can only play against 52 coaches (top 53 as opponents), as against all others, I would have to play an illegal match with a TS-dif higher than 40.
I would suggest exponential implementation of TS-dif. |
|
|
Laviak
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 14:24 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | The existing formula overestimates CR over TS by a huge amount. |
That is true .. but it's only a problem if you're actually going to lose 
It just means you are risking more than they are (in terms of CR). I think the main reason for that is to prevent 'good' coaches from gaining CR by challenging 'poor' coaches. You have to win say nine out of ten games (maybe it's more than that) against average coaches with relatively even teams -- and that shouldn't be too hard if you're as good as your CR says 
The formula I'd like to see improved is TS ... but it's probably a whole lot better now than anything I'd be able to come up with I guess the main trouble is that there is no consideration of how good particular skills are against a specific opponent. The zons vs dwarves is by far the best example of this, where the dwarves are massively under-valued (due to tackle vs dodge). |
_________________
We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!. |
|
LordSnotball
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 14:25 |
|
why stop at 40pts difference? over 200 there is no limitation, and i can imagine a 300tr team beating say a 400tr occassionally. urs sounds like a good place to start, but is to simple, and easily abusable imo...
with beginning teams, 30-40 tr difference means a lot of handicaps, and they can mean the difference between a victory or a loss, far more than the CR does... |
_________________
-Snottie
The Congregation - Always Recruiting
[url=http://igolocal.net/badge.php?user_id=1949] [/url] |
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 14:28 |
|
What is coach ranking? Is it edible?  |
|
|
Candlejack
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 14:48 |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 15:18 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | I would suggest exponential implementation of TS-dif. |
No, it was worse when it was an absolute value. Now it is relative to the opponents TS as well ie, 120 TS vs 100 TS is the same as 240 TS vs 200 TS.
What we need is:
1. Roll back the changes to the formula that happened awhile ago. it went from dCR/70 to dCR/40. Pushing it upto say 100 or 120 will stop the stupid problem of not being able to play 'fair' games against 'average' coaches, and losing one game in 4 and still leaking massive amounts of CR.
2. FIX the strength forumula. It badly undervalues big game winning skills like claw + rsc, dp, str and agility increases, high armour etc. Some races naturally get a big str reduction over what they really are with the current system (Im thinking dwarves and orcs expecially here). Also put back the minimum value of any player to 20k.
3. Reduce the 40 str rule to 30 STR and enforce it at all values. Have the minimum team STR 100 whatever the state of the team. Also increase the STR value of star players, atm they dont reflect how overpoweringly good some of them are.
4. Disable gaining or losing CR if your opponent has less than ~10% of the total # of ranked games played than you have. No more cherry picking newbies with 150 CR. |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 15:47 |
|
Lets get rid of coach ranking all together and take away a primary reason for power gamers to cherry pick.
An added bonus is you eliminate these types of threads. |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
Wukong
Joined: Nov 21, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 16:00 |
|
| Mully wrote: | Lets get rid of coach ranking all together and take away a primary reason for power gamers to cherry pick.
An added bonus is you eliminate these types of threads. |
Here, here!
Best suggestion yet! |
_________________
"Death is only the begining!" |
|
mstrchef13
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 16:10 |
|
I don't even look at coach rating when choosing games, other than to see how likely it is I'm going to get my pants ripped. I don't care about my own coach rating. It used to suck when I was still learning not to do stupid stuff like make 20 dice rolls per turn because I have elves or try a 1db just because it was there, and it's gotten better as I've become a better coach. The only reason I have ranked teams is because it's easier to get games in ranked than it is anywhere else. It's too easy to get an artificially high CR, and many of the people who have them select their games carefully in order to keep it high.
I don't have many opportunities to play full games, so I can't afford to worry about nor do I care about that nonsense. I'd be more interested in a FR (fun rating) rather than a CR anyway. Of course, people would find a way to take advantage of that as well... *sigh* |
|
|
|
|
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
