Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion regarding Ranked division and ideas (and another) have cropped up on how to change how it works.
The most common complaint on [R] is the amount of "cherry picking" (actively seeking out easy opponents to maximise your Coach and/or Team rating) that goes on. The way I see it, there are two categories of ideas on how to solve this:
- Further limit the opponents you can play against
This is completely against the basic premise of FUMBBL. Ranked division is, and will always be, an open play division. This inevitably leads to cherry picking, both for CR and TR purposes. Some people will always seek to maximise the TR any way possible, which means picking easy opponents. The same goes for CR, which leads us to the other category of ideas.
- Rework the CR system
The most extreme idea in this category is to completely remove CR. I don't see the point of this, as it's exactly what [U] is. There is no need to remove the option of playing with a coach ranking system from those coaches who do enjoy it.
Now, I'm not denying that the CR system has flaws. As with ANY other ranking system, you're "playing the CR game" if you participate/care about your CR. The CR value is something that indicates how well you play this meta-game, where picking your opponents is at least as important as actually being good at playing the game.
The current ranking system is ELO based, which is a VERY common system to rank people. The ELO system is not inherently flawed, but there are two factors in how FUMBBL works that in combination gives coaches the ability to min/max their ranking:
1. The fact that teams are not equal.
2. The ability to pick and choose your opponents.
The first point is inherent in blood bowl and it would simply be silly to change this. The second point ties in to what I wrote earlier. FUMBBL is by design primarly an "open play" environment and I do not want this to change.
So, where does this lead us? Is the CR system flawed enough to force a complete reworking? Maybe. However, I haven't found a system that has a potential to change anything in a major way to warrant a rehaul. This doesn't mean there hasn't been anything done to reduce the problem. If you are "playing the CR game", you inevitably know that the official [R] tournaments are much more valuable than regular games. Winning a major tournament will have a major impact on your CR - giving you a lead that isn't easily overcome by casual play. Given that you can't cherry pick in tournaments, this means that people who do well in tournaments will eventually catch up to and pass the "cherry pickers". Not a perfect solution, but it works. Moreso with the recent focus on increasing the number of official tournaments.
I've been accused of being totally ignorant on the cherry picking and the flaws of the CR system. This is completely not true, and I am quite sure that I know how the CR system works on a deeper level than the average coach. I know what happens when you change the various constants in the formula, I have a reasonable grasp of the self-regulating nature of the ELO algorithm. I have access to the complete result database of the site and I can, and have, tried various changes to the formula and seen what happens to win probilities and statistical outcomes. Accusing me of not knowing, or not caring, about these things is so completely untrue it's rediculous.
Having said that, I AM open for constructive suggestions on how to improve the system. There are obviously some restrictions on what's possible to do for performance reasons, but I would welcome a properly thought through suggestion. Preferrably with some mathematical analysis as well. Devising a fair ranking system isn't trivial and it requires more knowledge of statistics and probability math than I have. Even links to papers on the subject would be welcomed.
So the bottom line here is that [R] won't change in the near future but I AM willing to listen to ideas on how to improve the CR and Team Strength systems. I do, however, ask you to keep a constructive tone. An aggressive tone will make me very defensive and I'll likely ignore any valid points you have 
As always in my posts of this kind I tend to babble on like a madman. Sorry for that |
|
|
Frankie
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
|
 Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 09:50 |
 
|
I couldn't entirely digest the process of the ranking equation, but can the CR decrease even after a win? I know that in chess it can, but it doesn't have to calculate in the "teams". Or could the equation use a different S coefficient when the CR difference is considerable? (sorry if I made lexical mistakes, math term. tech. is out of my reach ) |
|
|
paulhicks
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 10:17 |
|
I dont care about coach rating and to be honest i dont understand what all the big fuss is about in ranked atm.
I play ranked because it has the most active coaches and i love the open format where everyone gets to play how they enjoy playing. sure there are coaches who deliberatly pick on weaker coaches/teams but not that many of them. everyone is acting at the moment like theres half the ranked coaches trying to ruin it for everyone wereas my experiences of ranked have been that 99% of the coaches are cool people. not all of them play the same style as me or want to play vrs me but so what?
"cherry picking" has so many definitions that i long ago stopped treating it as a serious problem. coaches in all divisions will sometimes choose to seek out the easiest games (when not in a set scedule) and i find it hard to believe that those few silly little numbers we call coach ranking are as big a motivator as winning a medal/getting promotion in faction (no im not calling any of you cherry pickers) or just building up a realy powerfull team where the players dont die.
Christer: i can understand why you become frusrated sometimes with the forums. You (and the other admins) do an excellent job and provide us with free entertainment where many of us spend far too much of our free time and it seems everyone spends the whole time moaning. Sure if there are genuine things to sort out then fair enough but i think this whole cherrypicking in ranked crap has become blown entirely out of proportion. everyone is worrying so much about how everyone else plays their starting to forget about having fun.
P.S. if there are realy people out there who care that much about coach rating then im always around for a game. My zombies in particular are a very easy win  |
_________________
Spelling, grammer and sense are for noobs! |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 11:13 |
|
First of all:
Those who accuse you not to listen aren´t really worth listening 
Now for the constructive suggestions, I have made several several points over time on TS-system and CR, maybe it´s time to collect them and present them together.
Teamstrenght modification:
1) High-MA-high-ST-Bonus:
As explained here, the +2 bonus for players with MA6+ & ST4+ should recieve another condition: AG2+
This way lizzies can find even games again as they were the ones accidently hit by this, when it was implemented to show the advantage of a ST4 ballcarrier.
Within the thread I recieved alot of agreement for this chance.
2) Breaktackle:
As mentioned in this thread, the bonus for taking break tackle is too high. Taking Break Tackle on a chaoswarrior increases his TS more than taking +AG.
Solution: Chance the bonus from +2 to (ST-AG)/2
It still represents the value for player who need it for mobility like sauri and mummies but isn´t so expensive TS-wise for players who can try a reasonable dodge without it like CWs.
3) FF
Before GTR was changed back, I argumented here for counting only one third of the FF to TS. Now with Get the ref changed back, I still would like to see only half of the FF counted for TS.
4) blodge-bonus:
No major change, but I was thinking lately about the impact of blodge on the games and maybe the bonus for blodge should be reduced to 1 down from 1,5.
5) The AV9-problem:
Sure TS is meant to measure the chances for winning the actual game, but the impression of alot of people is, that the TS-formula gives lots of AV9-races a soft ride, especially the orcs. AV9 lets your stars stay on the pitch much longer. I know, that increasing the value for AV9 on the TS-array would move away from the goal of estimating the chance to win the actual game, so I would try to tweak the weight-factor.
a) Modify the playercount by AverageAV*1,5-12.
b) Modify the weightarray. Someone with an average of 9 players on the pitch during the game will play with 97% of his TS? I would try the following:
6 or less->0.8
7 -> 0.85
8 -> 0.89
9 -> 0.93
10 -> 0.96
11 -> 0.98
12-14 -> 1.00
15+16-> 0.99
17+ -> 0.98
Though this is just a table base on my feelings, you can see where it goes: Making the fact, that you will play undermanned more of a factor.
6) High-AG-high-ST-bonus:
Bring in a bonus for AG4+&ST4+ players. This bonus could either be +1 or could be (AG+ST-6)/2
7) Bonus for claws:
Like guard is worth an extra 0,5 points, such a bonus (+0,5 or +1) would be appropriate for claws.
Now that´s it for TS for now, lets move on to the CR.
1) As layed down here and here, the CR-system overrates CR over TS. I just post the examples here:
a) 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.
b) 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 just can´t find the the topic right now, where I calculated through a change, but it was about the lines of:
a) Use the normalized CR-dif (normalized on the higher coaches CR) and change the divisor of CR-dif from 40 -> 25 (so there is no change for a CR 160 Coach) as the dif between 150 and 160 is WAY more than between 190 and 180.
b) Use an exponential factor on TS-dif. Something along the lines of (TS-dif^1,4).
2) Maybe giving an incentive to play all races is a good idea. I think of implementing the "medal-system" proposed ages ago. A Coach who played all races (besides the stunties) once, recieves the "bronze-medal of bravery", gaining 0,25 CR and +1FF as a bonus. You can assign various tasks to be done with some boni and/or medals for braggin rights.
That´s it for now. Enjoy reading and I´m hoping for a good discussion. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 11:42 |
|
ATM I don't have time to go behind the math involved, but I suggested (long ago) a way to give bonus CR to coaches who play a variety of opponents. Read here.
Despite my idea being turned down because it's not possible to define "bashyness" only by race standards (skills are involved), I think it would be a nice feature and that it might work. Medals of Honor ca work too, but my solution is more direct and affects CR a bit more imho. |
_________________
 |
|
Funso
Joined: Apr 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 11:54 |
|
Personally, I see very little wrong with Ranked.
I think people are expecting it to be the competetive division, when Faction is already the serious, competetive division. Ranked is, in my opinion, the fun division, where you go for a game when you have nothing better to do, and there is a nice, fun CR to act as an incentive to do well. |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 12:02 |
|
CR isn't the problem underlying but it's something about the equilibre of all league. The solution DON'T lie within the formulae. It's the weight of disions that should be changed!
The problems lies in the fact that Tournament Unranked and Ranked are not clear.
I would:
-write U team in tournament as beeing T. (not a real seperation but it would help.
-Stop dividing channels or link channels on the chat page.
-keep CR formula and CR but move ALL current team in open group and force players that care for CR to start new teams
-change U name in Open. |
|
|
Funso
Joined: Apr 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 12:33 |
|
Sk, I am not sure I understand what you are saying.
1/ | Quote: | | keep CR formula and CR but move ALL current team in open group and force players that care for CR to start new teams |
Why? Not saying it's a bad or good idea, but how will that help in any way?
2/ | Quote: | | Stop dividing channels or link channels on the chat page |
Chat channels need to be seperate. Sifting Faction chat in Ranked would be a royal pain. And I do not believe it is possible to link all chat channels from the main channel. However, a web page listing all the channels would be a good idea. |
|
|
keggiemckill
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 13:03 |
|
When it comes to this whole ranked is terrible because of the cherry picking thing, I think people are being dramatic. I like that Fumbbl is an open situation with free choice towards my games. Everyone gets cherry picked at some point. You can't force someone to play. If you want to force someone to not avoid your teams then play ladder. Cherry picking is in the eyes of the beholder. Cherry picking isnt a big deal when you can decide whom you play. Today my Wood Elves were refused by an Ogre team, a Khemri team, and a Chaos Dwarf team. We were all close in rating, Go figure. Is that cherry picking? Technically yes. Or rather it might be stupidity. Who runs from a WE team anyways?
@Christer- Im sure you already are going to do this, but my advice is to leave the ranked division alone. |
_________________
The Drunker I get, the more I spill
"Keggie is the guy with the bleach blond hair that gives answers nobody else would think of."
Jeffro |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 13:06 |
|
on point 1:
-Most of R players don't care of CR. CR players cherrypick them to increase their score. People whine about that. But more are not ready to play U because they would have to build new teams up without beeing sure they would get games.
Now if these guys (who don't care about CR) have their teams in open. They continue to play as if nothing changed. CR coaches would now be between guys who cares about it, making it more difficult.
-Maybe but I still see bb lfg's in the channel and the main channel then shouldn't be the Ranked channel but a chat channel. |
|
|
Mezir
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 13:59 |
|
| Funso wrote: | | However, a web page listing all the channels would be a good idea. |
You mean this one? |
_________________
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day; set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. |
|
origami
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 14:07 |
|
Ranked is very enjoyable and works quite well currently.
I would suggest continuing with the increased number of ranked tournaments. I've played in a couple, and they have been a lot of fun - tense matches against good opponents. It would be nice to have more tournaments aimed at a lower TR group, though. Personally, I feel that the game is designed for and is more enjoyable with teams below TR 200. Therefore, this is where I try to keep my teams. However, this puts me at a huge disadvantage in most of the official tournaments. |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 15:34 |
|
| Quote: |
It would be nice to have more tournaments aimed at a lower TR group, though. Personally, I feel that the game is designed for and is more enjoyable with teams below TR 200.
|
Bingo |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
LordSnotball
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 16:06 |
|
if you ask me, a lot of fuss is made over nothing... if you want to reduce the cherry picking, i would recommend that an additional 'clause/value' would be added, so if the coach ranking is in the 130-140 range, unless they play with someone up to 149, the effect it has on CR should be negative. hence newbie bashing will be reduced, and will allow for more constructive coaching... the cherry picking of ppl with low coach rating will stop, as it will reduce ur CR instead of increasing it (for most players).
then i would add a clause for ppl in the 140-145 range. if by beating them u would normally get say .50 pts, for this to be halved by anyone who has a CR more than 15 pts higher than them, ie .25 (i don't know the formula, so i'm just giving examples for the numbers to be clearer.
after that, anyone in the 146 range has slowly got the ropes of the game, and is starting to play more effectively, at which point playing against them should run under the current form...
in essence, this will 'reduce' some of the easy cherry picking, will encourage more 'educational' challenges for the newer players/coaches, and represent a learning curve for the players more realistically...
however, having said that, i just have to say that i'm happy with the way it is atm... and regardless of any changes you make, you will still have ppl complaining. |
_________________
-Snottie
The Congregation - Always Recruiting
[url=http://igolocal.net/badge.php?user_id=1949] [/url] |
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 16:19 |
|
Well Christers formula takes that stuff into account and is much more precise than what you are suggesting. |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
