35 coaches online • Server time: 00:23
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Old style skill prog...goto Post Get your League bann...goto Post data on the most use...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Balle2000



Joined: Sep 25, 2008

Post   Posted: Sep 01, 2016 - 23:26 Reply with quote Back to top

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

Post   Posted: Sep 01, 2016 - 23:29 Reply with quote Back to top

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

Post   Posted: Sep 01, 2016 - 23:39 Reply with quote Back to top

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!!" Razz
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Sep 01, 2016 - 23:53 Reply with quote Back to top

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

Post   Posted: Sep 02, 2016 - 00:03 Reply with quote Back to top

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

Post   Posted: Sep 02, 2016 - 00:52 Reply with quote Back to top

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

Post   Posted: Sep 02, 2016 - 00:56 Reply with quote Back to top

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!!" Razz
Medon



Joined: Jan 28, 2015

Post   Posted: Sep 02, 2016 - 08:21 Reply with quote Back to top

We should turn to the bookmakers, they are always right! Inducements based on the odds at the bookmakers
Mr_Foulscumm



Joined: Mar 05, 2005

Post   Posted: Sep 02, 2016 - 08:49 Reply with quote Back to top

We're never going to agree on what to do.

_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL
Balle2000



Joined: Sep 25, 2008

Post   Posted: Sep 02, 2016 - 10:36 Reply with quote Back to top

mrt1212 wrote:
Then refer to my first point.

Too work-intensive Smile
Desultory



Joined: Jun 24, 2008

Post   Posted: Sep 02, 2016 - 21:21 Reply with quote Back to top

https://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=687983#687983

Please provide a list of problems with TV team value. In hope that it could be the beginnings of changing TV to reflect fairer value.

_________________
Image
Traul



Joined: Jun 09, 2013

Post   Posted: Sep 03, 2016 - 01:51 Reply with quote Back to top

Desultory wrote:
Khor_Varik wrote:
Does it help? https://fumbbl.com/p/blog&c=Christer&id=16547
[...]
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

Post   Posted: Sep 05, 2016 - 00:31 Reply with quote Back to top

Traul wrote:
Desultory wrote:
Khor_Varik wrote:
Does it help? https://fumbbl.com/p/blog&c=Christer&id=16547
[...]
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

Post   Posted: Feb 01, 2017 - 03:46 Reply with quote Back to top

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.
Smile
I play Slann and the reward is getting mismatches.
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Feb 01, 2017 - 04:15 Reply with quote Back to top

So literally months between incidents. I'll show myself out.
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic