31 coaches online • Server time: 10:57
* * * Did you know? The most deaths in a single match is 8.
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post ramchop takes on the...goto Post Advice against ST4 A...goto Post DIBBL Awards
Purplegoo
Last seen 1 hour ago
High Elf
Legend
High Elf
Record
186/39/46
Win Percentage
76%
Wood Elf
Legend
Wood Elf
Record
191/32/41
Win Percentage
78%
Overall
[R]
Legend
Overall
Record
1152/263/326
Win Percentage
74%
Archive

2019

2019-12-05 14:07:21
rating 6
2019-11-28 12:56:48
rating 4.2
2019-10-31 21:03:52
rating 5.7
2019-10-01 22:14:02
rating 5.8
2019-08-30 20:42:57
rating 5.8
2019-07-31 22:06:42
rating 5.2
2019-06-01 21:19:02
rating 5.8
2019-04-30 20:50:51
rating 4.8
2019-04-12 11:48:46
rating 6
2019-03-31 22:12:47
rating 6
2019-02-28 22:15:36
rating 6
2019-01-31 22:36:53
rating 4.3

2018

2018-11-30 18:48:22
rating 5.2
2018-10-31 21:31:37
rating 3.5
2018-09-28 21:04:52
rating 5.3
2018-08-29 17:19:08
rating 4.8
2018-07-31 11:28:46
rating 6
2018-06-29 17:21:49
rating 4.3
2018-05-31 22:31:52
rating 6
2018-05-01 22:21:48
rating 5.3
2018-03-30 21:58:47
rating 5.7
2018-02-28 20:53:29
rating 5.3
2018-01-31 22:10:32
rating 5.3
2018-01-08 23:13:09
rating 5.6

2017

2017-02-27 22:16:44
rating 5.7
2017-01-19 21:01:15
rating 4.8
2017-01-16 20:19:25
rating 3.5
2017-01-07 16:30:25
rating 5.3

2016

2016-11-07 21:21:31
rating 4.7
2016-10-13 12:48:51
rating 5.3
2016-09-12 09:06:48
rating 4.4
2016-09-08 21:05:08
rating 6
2016-09-05 18:57:28
rating 5.8
2016-09-01 19:24:37
rating 6
2016-08-30 21:34:24
rating 6
2016-08-28 11:26:25
rating 5
2016-06-24 06:34:00
rating 6
2016-06-22 20:55:03
rating 3.5
2016-06-20 19:18:03
rating 0
2016-06-13 21:12:57
rating 5.2
2016-05-18 19:37:27
rating 4.2
2016-05-15 20:23:20
rating 4.9
2016-04-11 12:44:27
rating 5.4
2016-04-04 09:20:28
rating 4.3
2016-04-01 18:40:48
rating 4.3
2016-03-29 18:47:58
rating 4.3
2016-03-25 11:39:15
rating 5.4
2016-03-24 09:16:47
rating 4.3
2016-03-20 12:35:28
rating 5.4
2016-01-17 21:05:12
rating 4.3
2016-01-14 19:47:35
rating 5
2016-01-11 20:58:21
rating 5.4
2016-01-09 19:03:09
rating 6
2016-01-06 19:39:11
rating 5.5

2015

2015-12-22 19:49:53
rating 6
2015-12-03 19:20:34
rating 5.3
2015-11-26 08:41:28
rating 4.3
2015-11-23 22:13:44
rating 4.8
2015-11-20 22:13:14
rating 5
2015-11-16 19:40:13
rating 5.3
2015-11-05 14:44:28
rating 4.3
2015-11-01 11:12:19
rating 5.3
2015-10-19 11:16:03
rating 6
2015-08-17 23:19:49
rating 4.8
2015-08-14 20:44:56
rating 4
2015-08-10 17:05:27
rating 5.2
2015-07-25 12:24:57
rating 4.9
2015-07-20 22:21:44
rating 3.5
2015-06-14 20:22:26
rating 5.4
2015-06-11 22:42:00
rating 5.2
2015-06-08 22:04:49
rating 6
2015-06-03 22:22:44
rating 5.2
2015-05-27 23:26:35
rating 5.3
2015-05-26 20:03:18
rating 6
2015-05-10 17:11:14
rating 5.6
2015-05-09 16:27:45
rating 5.8
2015-03-29 12:40:53
rating 6
2015-03-23 20:00:14
rating 5.6
2015-03-15 16:30:16
rating 5.6
2015-03-08 17:44:13
rating 5.5
2015-02-24 19:03:23
rating 5.1
2015-01-29 20:45:56
rating 5
2015-01-12 09:44:16
rating 5.5

2014

2014-12-30 19:45:18
rating 5.3
2014-08-02 11:18:38
rating 5.8
2014-04-18 20:12:27
rating 5.6
2014-03-22 10:18:13
rating 5.8
2014-01-19 10:47:29
rating 6

2013

2013-12-23 17:59:38
rating 5.8
2013-10-14 19:20:12
rating 5.6
2013-07-03 21:03:39
rating 4.8
2013-04-15 17:28:27
rating 5.8
2013-03-19 21:14:15
rating 4.7
2013-03-13 19:41:40
rating 5.1

2012

2012-10-16 20:56:34
rating 4.3
2012-07-28 09:44:26
rating 5
2012-07-13 19:52:14
rating 5.3
2012-04-19 21:10:11
rating 5
2012-03-02 18:47:22
rating 5.1

2011

2011-11-29 19:45:04
rating 5.1
2011-11-22 10:02:09
rating 5.4
2011-11-15 21:03:30
rating 4.5
2011-11-01 21:39:43
rating 5.1
2011-09-25 16:48:03
rating 4.9
2011-05-23 16:04:59
rating 5.6
2011-02-27 11:51:34
rating 4.8
2011-01-20 12:45:03
rating 5.7

2010

2010-11-11 17:50:10
rating 5.4
2010-09-28 20:56:23
rating 4.8
2010-08-30 16:25:01
rating 5
2010-08-01 21:22:32
rating 4.9
2010-04-04 21:25:57
rating 4.6
2010-02-17 20:09:59
rating 3.5
2010-01-05 12:05:02
rating 4.6

2009

2009-12-21 11:19:56
rating 4.8
2009-10-04 20:50:45
rating 4.5
2009-08-22 14:18:13
rating 3.8
2009-08-09 09:12:55
rating 4.7
2009-08-02 21:07:56
rating 4.7
2009-05-05 21:24:46
rating 5.1
2009-01-25 11:17:28
rating 5

2008

2008-11-04 20:06:44
rating 4.6
2008-10-15 20:26:30
rating 4.8
2008-06-03 11:50:09
rating 5.1
2008-02-16 15:47:30
rating 5
2008-01-06 10:48:05
rating 5.1
2008-01-03 21:03:34
rating 4.6

2007

2007-11-12 15:51:33
rating 4.7
2007-10-27 19:33:15
rating 4.8
2007-09-20 15:15:48
rating 4.2
2007-09-10 10:11:44
rating 4.5
2007-08-17 17:11:56
rating 4.6
2007-08-17 13:46:09
rating 3.8
2007-08-02 15:32:47
rating 4.5
2007-07-31 12:11:50
rating 3.9
2007-07-30 18:44:45
rating 3.8
2007-07-30 09:51:58
rating 3.6
2011-09-25 16:48:03
34 votes, rating 4.9
TV Matchmaking - Hurrah!
The below blog in the recent blog list inspired me to weigh in on this (weigh in makes my opinion sound weighty – not really the intent!), although it's far from a direct response. Every so often, we get some push or comment on moving away from TV based matchmaking in Box and how that sounds like a good idea. I disagree. TV matchmaking is like democracy; it’s not perfect, but it’s as good as we’ve got. And I’ll invade and steal your oil… Erm, impose the best system any time.

The BB internet has always worked on equality in terms of playing a game in an open division. It’s important on many levels; whether you’re trying to protect newer players from mismatched games that serve as spp farms for a more savvy coach (just as likely when the n00b screws up his Inducements or accepts a game from silly primed Halflings with 400k to spend as it ever was in LRB4), trying to maintain the integrity of a division (what does a ranking or a w/d/l record mean, afterall, if you’re playing a wildly different selection of games to the next guy in the same open league), trying to maintain the integrity of tournaments, whatever really, equality and the better coach winning is the approach we’ve always taken, and for numerous good reasons, some of which I’ve neglected to list there for brevity.

But (they say), we can maintain equality. TV can be ditched as numero uno, let’s bring in win % / CR / some other unnatural measure to pair up coaches of even skill, Inducements will do the rest. Nonsense, says I. Those old enough and ugly enough will remember we used to have CR as a major feature of the formula. And it was rubbish. Quite apart from being massively patronising to the ‘lesser’ coach, it was very little fun lining up both knowing there should only be one winner in terms of the teams on the pitch, and the unnatural skew made it a ‘game’ because the ‘lesser’ coach was going to screw up his massive advantage, or the ‘better’ coach was going to play excellently. It was horrendous, and of course, it got binned faster than shadow eats cookies. However well you coached, having 5 skills against 15 is just rubbish most of the time. A-ha, that was because of Handicaps (they say)! They were awful, and Inducements are way better! Well, doesn’t that defeat the object of skewing the TV? Is the ‘lesser team not on a par, so the ‘better’ coach should walk the game? A-ha, but we’d only pair good coaches with good coaches, and poor ones with poor ones, so it’s fair. Do you really think we have the number of coaches in each round to pull that off? We have a set number of coaches that suits TV matchmaking perfectly.

Obviously, in the ideal World (to ‘them’), every game would pit good coach with good coach with even teams. However, we don’t have those numbers to pull that off more often than not. So you’d get good coach A with a team, and good coach B with a bunch of Inducements. What about Inducements, anyway? I think they work brilliantly in some situations, and pants in others. In a cup where you’ve gotten beaten up, it’s brilliant that in the next game you’ve a chance, every game, in theory, is a contest. If I travel (this is a situation I’ve played out, so I can appreciate it) to a friend’s house, an hours’ drive, and play 3 hours of BB, it’s great to turn up and know that even though I’m 500TV down, I have a few toys to make it entertaining. Fun on a board is vital to propagate the game, LRB4 must have been an utter nightmare. Now – these situations do not translate to a 150 game or so a day division, for three reasons.

i) Novelty. They say – wouldn’t it be nice to see more stars? More Wizards? Inducements are a part of a game! In a tournament or a league, in real life, great. Let’s have stars, wizzies, kitchen sinks, special play cards, flying saucers, whatever you like for a big game, for a game between mates, for fun, for high stakes. I put it to you, that if we had all of that stuff 150 times a day, you’d be bored out of your skull with them. There is nothing cool about Morg if you see him every day.

ii) The mechanism that is Inducements. Inducements, as a general rule (think wizards, everyone’s favourite) work as a mechanism of gimmicks. They do not level the playing field a bit by giving one a Block Guard BOB (for example), a real, tangible player that can level the playing field somewhat by clever positional play and a more even distribution of skills, they level it via random gimmicky chance. Will that Chainsaw roll a 1 and die, or will it go nuts and kill three? Will the lightning bolt gimmick work, or is it 150K wasted and a comfortable victory for the overdog? Will Sidewinder be ace, or will Loner let him down and screw you? These gimmicks are fun, please don’t misunderstand, and in the above circumstances, they really add to a game. What they do not do, in my opinion, is make a one off game in an open division fun. If I come home after a hard day’s work and play a good coach, we both know what we’re doing, and I’ve got to face a one turn Gutter Runner (for instance, similar sort of a thing to an Inducement gimmick), I know that it’s not going to be a test of our coaching, it’s going to be 50% a fun game against a good coach, and 50% what that guy does, if he turns up. If the bolt works. If the Saw kills my best player. If Morg goes nuts.

iii) Inducements don’t make it 50/50. Whether you’ve got the 600TV ‘Fling team who will then easily beat most rookie teams, or you’re 250 down, you know what, every day as a slog, I guarantee you you’ll get fed up of lop sided games with gimmicks. That time some coach got far in a Major with a young team, that time you won on TT 1000TV down, these are no events that happen every day. And what ‘they’ suggest is that we see these mismatches every day. Inducements does not equal 50/50 on the field. And 50/50 on the field is important for the health and integrity of an open division like [R] or Box. Not so in [L], probably, but that’s what [L] is for!

Let’s move on to how TV-less (or lesser) matchmaking will ‘fix’ minmaxing or Claw/MB/PO. Last one first, this is easy. Erm, what? You will have to play C/M/P in Box. And the main reasons for this are a) It’s powerful, b) People that run those teams like the fact you can’t avoid the damage you’re about to dish out to them. It’s easy to avoid the combo elsewhere, but as you can see from the teams played in Box list, people like to bash you. They enjoy it, they enjoy you can’t avoid it. You having a wizard up your sleeve isn’t going to change that. They will still delight in the one on one death blow that such a player can dish out on anything from Morg to a –AV Halfling. Changing the formula will not change their mindset. I suggest, humbly, that the 10% that adding a wizard to every game would subtract from their win % will not make a jot of difference to their life, or indeed your life when you play the next 6 games with 6 Journeymen.

As for minmaxing – coaches that do that like efficiency in their teams. Even if you relax TV matching, they will still build teams in such a manner – they will get either an excellently efficiently built team with toys, or they will get an excellently efficiently built team that will have to cope with a star or two. I don’t see how that will relax their thinking, sure it’s slightly less of an advantage than a tight TV matchmade circumstance, but it’s still going to be an advantage over a very loosely built collection of poorly skilled chaps, Inducements or nay. Will TS fix it? Probably not. We could always hone our teams to TS, if we saw fit.

TV based matchmaking, then, is not perfect. It leads the good coach to have an easier time than he would in [R]. It’s probably hard on people that are poor at building teams in the time honoured FUMBBL tradition (I don’t mean minmaxing, I mean the other end of the scale), but they probably learn quickly. It’s easy to bash the status quo, to have a ‘better idea’, but I have to admit, I’ve not seen one. When you consider the environment that we have and the number of coaches that inhabit that environment, I think TV based matchmaking is as good as you’re going to get. Until I see a better idea, I will continue to beat that drum. The grass isn’t always greener, you know.
Rate this entry
Comments
Posted by Garion on 2011-09-25 17:13:21
well put, especially point i) and ii)
Posted by Overhamsteren on 2011-09-25 18:16:36

Indeed points 1&2 make good sense.

I think a big percentage are playing clawplomb in B for win% but I can't say for sure. The number of clawplomb teams that get 12+ wins in 16 matches in Kodoah's sprints are frightening.

Anyway I've seen the light in L and R and have found renewed enthusiasm for Fumbbl after some B slumps. I really don't care for changes like I did a month ago. :)
Posted by Purplegoo on 2011-09-25 18:39:50
Overhamsteren - I think your approach of leaving a division you don't enjoy is healthier than pushing for change to suit your own preferences, which I think drives some of the attempts to change the pairing formula, or indeed, a lot of the rule discussion we see in forums.

Not to push it too far down the Claw/MB/PO route (Lord knows, we see enough of that), but perhaps you’re right, I don’t know, although I suspect different. Hito, we all hope, will produce something significant on the whole thing with his study. As someone that doesn’t use the combo (not through abstention, just because I don’t enjoy Chaos / Nurgle), I have to admit the odd time I come across it doesn’t spoil my enjoyment of the division. But that’s just me!
Posted by Overhamsteren on 2011-09-25 18:46:18
Oh by the way I still enjoy games in B from time to time, even against clawplomb, I've just branched out(probably also playing a bit less) and it's all good for me. :)

Would actually play more B if I got scheduled more often. Is B dying? ;D
Posted by koadah on 2011-09-25 18:51:10
I hope that didn't take too long to write. It seems like a lot of text to not say anything new. ;)

Who are those hoards of people who want to take away your TV matching? Dode? He doesn't even play here and even he is only asking for additional options.

@Overhamsteren don't forget to include all those woeful C-POMB teams further down the list. The main issue with the Sprint is that non C-POMB teams just can't or don't bother playing 16 or more matches over 1800.
Posted by Purplegoo on 2011-09-25 18:58:44
No - it didn't. I had a spare 15 minutes, and felt moved to waste them in this manner. :) Perhaps it isn't novel, but it's not as if it's a view that's expressed often here, it's much more common and in fashion to bash the status quo. Plus - it is a blog, it's not as if I'm starting a thread on the issue.

I'm afraid I don't know what Dode thinks (or indeed, who he is, really) - I don't really read other BB forums to a massive extent these days, due to quality issues and moderation (ironically). The view TV is a poor tool for matchmaking was around when I was interested in the early days of Cyanide, on TFF before it got overrun (although, those glasses may be rose tinted) and has been here in bits and bobs. I'm not laying it at anyone's door specifically. Although, I could say Galak, if you'd like traction and volume?

I do love the general Devil's Advocate approach you take. ;)
Posted by Garion on 2011-09-25 19:16:45
quote Kodah- "@Overhamsteren don't forget to include all those woeful C-POMB teams further down the list. The main issue with the Sprint is that non C-POMB teams just can't or don't bother playing 16 or more matches over 1800."

Yar I have this issue. When my teams approach 1800 I often just retire them, because I do not enjoy playing at a TV higher than that in that division. Perhaps I should see how far I can take my current Pro Elves. Its been a while since I dipped my toe in that pond.
Posted by nin on 2011-09-25 19:53:18
Great blog, I've played a couple of times with wizzard and I'd not like to see it in half my matches, for example.
The Clawpomb coments...just tired of those. Really, av9 in lrb4 was quite anoying to me, and linos with one general skill striking fear on everything was a poor desing imho. Clawpomb is not better, but doesn't look much worse either, it makes for fun Underworlders tbh.
Posted by pythrr on 2011-09-25 22:35:09
jesus goo, get a job
Posted by Wallace on 2011-09-26 00:45:54
Since I appear to have played a role in 'inspiring' this, I thought I'd add by two pennies worth.

How, when playing in scheduled leagues such as the SWL for example, do matches get decided? There is no reference to TV, CR etc only the performance each season which leads to promotion/relegation based solely on W/L/D results. So in essence, you play randomly selected games based on being in a broad band of teams with a similar past record of achievement.

If you ask anyone who has played in these long running scheduled leagues they will tell you that once you've done so anything else ( Box, Ranked whatever) just isn't as good, isn't as fun. There is obviously more to the enjoyment of a league than just how matches are arranged, but I think it plays a big part.

The question for me then, is how to approximate this BB Utopia for coaches who cannot reasonably commit to the more rigid playing schedule of these kind of leagues? To my mind, TV based matchmaking as in the Box is the simplest, easiest and probably fairest way of doing it. I enjoy playing games in the Box and barely play Ranked these days. BUT, it isn't for everyone. There are some clear problems to do with how that environment interacts with rules that weren't really intended to be used in that way. For some people this is not problem, for others a mild annoyance and for some a source of unreasonable discombobulation.

In terms of a site like FUMBBL I think it would be foolish to overcomplicated matchmaking in a core division like Box and the current system is probably about as good as you can do, with some minor tweaks possible. However, there is a subset of players who have a preference for something else, something that doesn't currently exist. The good thing about FUMBBL is that through the League tools, people can setup there own groups to play in whatever niche way they want.

Any individual can write a long essay justifying why their opinion is the right one, but people are different and just because one format is ideal for you doesn't mean it is ideal for everyone else. The point though, is to try and take practical steps to put in place whatever ideas you have, and see if there is enough people who agree to get something going.

I also can't stand people endless critising the status quo, but criticism and constructive action are different things. Is Koadah being critical of Ranked by providing an open league using house rules and no TV difference limits? I wouldn't think so.

For the record, to go back to my point about successful scheduled leagues, my ideal would be random matchmaking within division that are determined through promotion/relegation after 'seasons' of a set length in time. I could write pages trying to justify why I think this would be ideal, but there's not much point. Some people would like it some would not. If I can get it in place and enough people want to be involved then it may work. If not enough people are interested then it won't.
Posted by Purplegoo on 2011-09-26 11:00:00
I did say it was an inspiration, but my blog wasn't a direct response! I've played in the WIL for years, and obviously we're into the situation you mention now. Whilst I've always been big into league, that style of BB has always been niche. Infact, numbers suggest that the novelty has passed and people aren't as happy with it as they thought they would be. But, anyway, that is a tangent, as I said it wasn't a direct response. ;-)
Posted by koadah on 2011-09-26 12:29:16
The problem with [L]eague is that is difficult to schedule games. Your team is restricted to around 1 game a week and that may be a pain in the ass to arrange.

Bearing that in mind along with the massive number of games played by certain [R]/[B ] 'fanatics' ;) I think [L]eague looks anything but niche.

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=stats&op=games
Posted by Purplegoo on 2011-09-26 19:54:11
So much to disagree with there – which is the boon of your style of Devil’s advocacy / throwing in graphs, it does the job of producing inches, even when the intent is slightly off-tangent! ;) I’m pretty sure you contradict your own logic there, but it is all good fun.

The scheduled nature of [L]eague (or of scheduled leagues therein – [L] is what you make it, it’s just we in general make it, erm, [L]eagues) isn’t a negative, it’s just a take-or-leave what you enjoy / can play. It’s there or it isn’t. In the past, there have been numerous attempts at running a huge open league as a shadow of [R]anked, and if it was just the scheduled nature of [L] holding it back, there’s no reason why these attempts wouldn’t have succeeded. The tournaments were more interesting, there is a lack of pressure or ranking, it would have been better adminned to weedle out picking and other undesirables, just on a BB level, they each would have been an improvement on the status quo. They all failed. Your current attempt at house rules / you can play whatever TV you like is still in it’s novelty phase, but will it buck the trend? I doubt the inclusion of a relaxed 15% will do the job, but I hope I’m wrong. [R] that isn’t [R] will be better – it’ll just sadly never get the numbers.

[L]eague is a niche full of niches. It’s what makes it the best division on the site. Niche, however, isn’t for everyone, as the very graph you quoted shows. One or two heavy gamers in the official divisions don’t make such a large discrepancy on their own. Official brings gravitas, brings ease, brings lack of effort, brings numbers. I’m actually not enjoying every WIL game I play being full of damned Inducements, I think they actually detract from the online league and Handicaps / Star purchases are a better system online. But that’s a rant for another day. The WIL certainly swelled when [L] went LRB6, and now, predictably, drop outs are happening more and more and we’re scrabbling around for replacements. The reasons for this are deeper than ‘don’t like Inducements’, and a great deal more complex, but I’ll bet every game being a circus act isn’t helping.

Although; you know all that, but you got your inches! This time, not next. ;)