BigMac
Joined: Dec 19, 2004
|
 Posted:
Aug 28, 2006 - 17:49 |
 
|
| pac wrote: | There's a far better way to settle this question than looking at tables, or inventing any kind of 'team ranking'.
It's called: <b>XFL Humans</b>.
Someone call Candlejack!
Edit: The current holder of that title is Flix - and as far as I can tell BigMac did not compete. |
Isn't that a humans only tournament?
If it is then all it says is who has the Human vs. Humans matchup figured out best.
I'm talking about a 100 games or so campaingn with the race and just see how you do with W/D/L. |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 28, 2006 - 17:54 |
|
| BigMac wrote: | | pac wrote: | There's a far better way to settle this question than looking at tables, or inventing any kind of 'team ranking'.
It's called: <b>XFL Humans</b>.
Someone call Candlejack!
Edit: The current holder of that title is Flix - and as far as I can tell BigMac did not compete. |
Isn't that a humans only tournament?
If it is then all it says is who has the Human vs. Humans matchup figured out best.
I'm talking about a 100 games or so campaingn with the race and just see how you do with W/D/L. |
Long term W/D/L results in an <i>open division</i> are meaningless as they are distorted by cherry-picking. If you want to prove yourself, do it in a tournament! |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi  |
|
vanGorn
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 28, 2006 - 20:50 |
|
| pac wrote: | | BigMac wrote: | | pac wrote: | There's a far better way to settle this question than looking at tables, or inventing any kind of 'team ranking'.
It's called: <b>XFL Humans</b>.
Someone call Candlejack!
Edit: The current holder of that title is Flix - and as far as I can tell BigMac did not compete. |
Isn't that a humans only tournament?
If it is then all it says is who has the Human vs. Humans matchup figured out best.
I'm talking about a 100 games or so campaingn with the race and just see how you do with W/D/L. |
Long term W/D/L results in an <i>open division</i> are meaningless as they are distorted by cherry-picking. If you want to prove yourself, do it in a tournament! |
Even better than a tournament would be a league, running over lots of seasons. |
_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.
 |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 28, 2006 - 21:08 |
|
| vanGorn wrote: | | Even better than a tournament would be a league, running over lots of seasons. |
I quite agree: but Unranked seems to be against BigMac's religion … or something. |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 29, 2006 - 14:54 |
|
| BigMac wrote: | | One more point about ultra competitive play: A dead Rat Ogre cannot kill any of you players anymore, so why NOT foul the beast? Even if you already won. |
Because basically, if he kills one of my guys, my str is lowered but my next opponent will have also lower strength.
It's critical to keep player alive in recovery. Else, if you don't care that much about your stars or players, it's not a big deal. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 29, 2006 - 14:57 |
|
| pac wrote: | There's a far better way to settle this question than looking at tables, or inventing any kind of 'team ranking'.
It's called: <b>XFL Humans</b>.
Someone call Candlejack!
Edit: The current holder of that title is Flix - and as far as I can tell BigMac did not compete. |
cough cough
by pro elves are in stand by for monthes waiting for that XLF.... |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
Meech
Joined: Sep 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 29, 2006 - 14:58 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | | pac wrote: | There's a far better way to settle this question than looking at tables, or inventing any kind of 'team ranking'.
It's called: <b>XFL Humans</b>.
Someone call Candlejack!
Edit: The current holder of that title is Flix - and as far as I can tell BigMac did not compete. |
cough cough
by pro elves are in stand by for monthes waiting for that XLF.... |
Because they are elves, and no one likes elves! |
_________________
Putting the FU in fumbbl since 9/2005 |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 29, 2006 - 14:59 |
|
| BigMac wrote: | | As far as orcs go: They scare the hell out of me. I hate it when i am outblocked with humans. With elves, i know how to protect myself but Orcs really scare my humans. I don't know if i would use Dirty Player against them a lot. First of all, you can't foul if you cant knock someone over. And fouling with the eye is out of the question since they do enough CAS on their own no need to leave the field willingly after stupid fouls vs. high armour. |
yarrrrr don't tell me you avoid orks because you fear cas?!?!?! |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 29, 2006 - 15:04 |
|
| pac wrote: | | Long term W/D/L results in an <i>open division</i> are meaningless as they are distorted by cherry-picking. If you want to prove yourself, do it in a tournament! |
So pac, you basically refute the average correctness of the CR formula?
While I agree that you can distord the value by cherrypicking, I however support the comeback of a team ranking.
I mean, most of us selects the better races in order to increase our chances to be ranked high.
Lizards, for exemple, are far less popular than orks. Could we also be one of the best 50 lizards coach on Fumbbl, would I find it more fun. Actually, I d like it back in U, tbh. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 29, 2006 - 15:35 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | | pac wrote: | | Long term W/D/L results in an <i>open division</i> are meaningless as they are distorted by cherry-picking. If you want to prove yourself, do it in a tournament! |
So pac, you basically refute the average correctness of the CR formula? |
Doesn't everyone these days?
Let me put it another way: no <i>single measure</i> can be a guide to the quality of a coach. A combination of Coach Rating, tournaments won, and general on-site reputation, need to be used (in addition to assorted other statistics provided by the site).
So, if a coach has a very high CR, but has never won <i>anything</i> in [R], this should make you wonder how he got that CR … On the other hand, if he <i>also</i> has a high reputation in the community as a great coach (but one who doesn't have time for consecutive matches, or the ability to pre-arrange matches), that would be different.
Similarly, if a coach has won five or so Smacks and a Major, but happens to have, say, CR 155 at the moment, he's probably not suddenly stopped being a good coach! He couldn't have won all that by luck. Probably, he's running some kind of weird or experimental team at the moment, or has had a run of bad luck in Smacks causing sudden CR drop.
And there are other possible examples.
What I think is absurd is BigMac's idea, which is (as I perceive it) that there can/should be a single Rating value (whether for team or for coach) which would/should tell you everything you need to know about his/its competitiveness. It cannot and could not. And if it could, I still wouldn't want it.  |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2006 - 12:06 |
|
| pac wrote: | | sk8bcn wrote: | | pac wrote: | | Long term W/D/L results in an <i>open division</i> are meaningless as they are distorted by cherry-picking. If you want to prove yourself, do it in a tournament! |
So pac, you basically refute the average correctness of the CR formula? |
Doesn't everyone these days?
Let me put it another way: no <i>single measure</i> can be a guide to the quality of a coach. A combination of Coach Rating, tournaments won, and general on-site reputation, need to be used (in addition to assorted other statistics provided by the site).
So, if a coach has a very high CR, but has never won <i>anything</i> in [R], this should make you wonder how he got that CR … On the other hand, if he <i>also</i> has a high reputation in the community as a great coach (but one who doesn't have time for consecutive matches, or the ability to pre-arrange matches), that would be different.
Similarly, if a coach has won five or so Smacks and a Major, but happens to have, say, CR 155 at the moment, he's probably not suddenly stopped being a good coach! He couldn't have won all that by luck. Probably, he's running some kind of weird or experimental team at the moment, or has had a run of bad luck in Smacks causing sudden CR drop.
And there are other possible examples.
What I think is absurd is BigMac's idea, which is (as I perceive it) that there can/should be a single Rating value (whether for team or for coach) which would/should tell you everything you need to know about his/its competitiveness. It cannot and could not. And if it could, I still wouldn't want it. |
I kinda must disagree. I may accept that coachs may be over/under rated but that the ranking is fair in average.
I don't mean that that coach CR 180 is clearly better than the 175 one. however I would bet on these two if they'd play a CR 150 one.
So I don't implie it's the ultimate value, I also think it could be approved by complexfying the formula according to other factors, but I would find quite fun to see how my teams performs.
I remembered my Chaos, long time ago, with their ranking so low. I really wanted them to pass the 150 mark. But it disappeared before I achieved it. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2006 - 12:19 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | | I don't mean that that coach CR 180 is clearly better than the 175 one. however I would bet on these two if they'd play a CR 150 one. |
So how would you rate this (approx) CR 150 coach? Or - and I admit that this is a fairly silly example - this one?
I could trawl for other examples, but am too lazy.
CR <i>as a sole point of reference</i> is not completely meaningless, but really isn't that useful. Whereas a quick perusal of other aspects of a coach's record can reveal quite quickly whether he got that (high) CR via elfball, running power-basher teams, cherry-picking, tournament wins, etc, etc.
Or, in the case of a relatively low CR coach, an examination of his record can reveal whether it is low because he is new, because he is poor at the game, because he runs underpowered teams or rosters, because he plays to kill (and not to win), etc, etc.
CR is just one solitary number (as I keep trying to explain), and as such it really can't tell me anything very interesting. |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi |
|
eyeslikethunder
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2006 - 13:06 |
|
spubbba if you play any of the CR180+ coach i think you will find they are excellent and will beat you easily
if you want avoid cherry picking enter the smacks they are going on all the time
here is a link for the smacks
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=group&op=view&group=1609
people play BB for very different reasons R gives people an environment in which they find games and play the sort of BB they want to play |
_________________
Proud Member of E.L.F.
There was this disturbance in the water, then suddenly this giant testicle came out and grabbed me |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2006 - 17:58 |
|
| pac wrote: | | sk8bcn wrote: | | I don't mean that that coach CR 180 is clearly better than the 175 one. however I would bet on these two if they'd play a CR 150 one. |
So how would you rate this (approx) CR 150 coach? Or - and I admit that this is a fairly silly example - this one?
I could trawl for other examples, but am too lazy.
CR <i>as a sole point of reference</i> is not completely meaningless, but really isn't that useful. Whereas a quick perusal of other aspects of a coach's record can reveal quite quickly whether he got that (high) CR via elfball, running power-basher teams, cherry-picking, tournament wins, etc, etc.
Or, in the case of a relatively low CR coach, an examination of his record can reveal whether it is low because he is new, because he is poor at the game, because he runs underpowered teams or rosters, because he plays to kill (and not to win), etc, etc.
CR is just one solitary number (as I keep trying to explain), and as such it really can't tell me anything very interesting. |
you were probably also lazy in digging out your exemples. You take me topper28 out, who's win percentage is slightely under 50%. He probably deserves a CR of 160 but I can't judge since I don't remember having played him.
Then you dig out Evo, that doesn't play R since the Ranking reset thus never changed his score.
We though nearly agrees. I disagree to your formulation.
I say: No CR isn't an unique powerfull value that evaluates you accurately. However it is an interesting information on the coach level. Thus it is not meaningless.
| Quote: | | Long term W/D/L results in an open division are meaningless as they are distorted by cherry-picking |
No their aren't meaningless but they can be distorded by cherrypicking.
| pac wrote: | | me wrote: | | So pac, you basically refute the average correctness of the CR formula? |
Doesn't everyone these days? |
no I don't.
"no single measure can be a guide to the quality of a coach"
To that I agree that a single mesure is inaccurate, may be flawed, BUT for 80% of the coaches you have a fair indication about the coach level.
I agree to your exemples. That might exist.
"What I think is absurd is BigMac's idea, which is (as I perceive it) that there can/should be a single Rating value (whether for team or for coach) which would/should tell you everything you need to know about his/its competitiveness. It cannot and could not. And if it could, I still wouldn't want it. "
It wouldn't indicate it. But it would be fun. Like the top 10!
Who cares that your pro elf catcher is the best all time pro elf catcher? yourself, not more. But you want it tough. And it's the same process here. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2006 - 20:55 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | | To that I agree that a single mesure is inaccurate, may be flawed, BUT for 80% of the coaches you have a fair indication about the coach level. |
I could more or less agree with that figure. But using other information (as mentioned in my earlier examples) <i>along with CR</i> will give you a far better (and more textured) impression of a coach than an improved CR formula ever could. So I say: don't worry about improving the CR formula, but instead encourage coaches to use all the information available to them, and to use their brains to interpret it.
Edit: Grats on passing Macavity! |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi |
|
|
|
| |
Secret League Americ...
Search
