| Poll |
| Change the Scheduler? |
| yes, encourage mirror matches |
|
65% |
[ 88 ] |
| no, discourage mirror matches |
|
34% |
[ 47 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 135 |
|
Fela
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
|
 Posted:
Apr 22, 2011 - 00:42 |
 
|
| licker wrote: | | Fela wrote: | | You're interpreting causality into the data without valid justification giving the limited knowledge presented. Sound better? |
Sounds as wrong as the first time you said it. If it sounds better to you so be it. How many data points are you asking to look at?
| Fela wrote: |
My position is: let's gather some proof for one side or another before making rash decisions, yet you demand i bring proof to support my position? Sounds a bit weird to me. |
lol...
I'm asking you for evidence that there is not enough data right now to use in drawing a conclusion. Surely someone with your apparent background in stats can back that up.
But what 'proof' do you need? We already saw the formula, we all know it has bias in it, we all see that the data reflects this bias (again, it's expected and intended), so what 'proof' are you actually after?
|
Maybe you're not familiar with scientific method.
Step1: Gather data
Step2: Establish a theory
Step3: Compare data with theory
Step 1 and 2 are interchangeable, but you seem to think you completed step3 without actually having step2 covered thoroughly.
So no, i'm not asking for more 'data points', i'm asking for a sound theory to compare the existing data against.
| Quote: |
| Fela wrote: | | It may make mirror matches more probable, including mirror matches noone really wants to see. I really care a lot less about that minuscule factor than about the way this discussion is held. |
It may??? Oh my, let me ask you how it wouldn't then. And I love your use of the absolute 'no one' here. Oh my, again.
|
I suppose my words lacked the explanation you apparently require. Suppose the 3% factor against mirror matches is negligible compared with the other factors we have not been able to identify clearly. Then yes, it obviously will make mirror matches more probable, but my 'may' was aimed at the significance of this 'more'.
| Quote: |
| Fela wrote: | | What happened to your answer to my question in the end? Too difficult? |
Too pointless actually. I'm against these artificial 'dominating factors' to begin with. In any case, I already prescribed one which would never happen, too dominating to be sure. |
Another way of saying you can't even see the blatantly obvious. Yet you insist on interpreting data you obviously don't understand. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2011 - 00:44 |
|
| Timlagor wrote: |
Licker: someone worked out (and listed) that only a small proportion of racial matches were more favoured than mirror matches -removing the racial factor would decrease mirror matches for many races.
|
I recall. 12.6%
Doesn't seem that small of a number to me.
But it's still entirely beside the point of why [B] 'needs' to try and make things 'better'.
Again, what [B] is, is fine with me.
I've just not found any compelling reason to think that it *has* to be the way it is. Seems some people are defending the current system as though it's the only one which works.
*shrugs* |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2011 - 00:54 |
|
Fela...
Your tired attempts to sound as though you know what you are talking about are getting old.
There is data which you for some reason chose to ignore. Not my problem to explain it to you anymore. You also don't seem to understand the difference between theory and hypothesis. The hypothesis that mirror matches happen less frequently than expected in an unbiased draw has been posed, and verified.
Of course it's not really earth shattering since it was, indeed, entirely expected.
I don't really see any point in continuing a discussion with you on this subject. You seem married to your inability to understand how data is actually analyzed, and I'm clearly not the right person to break you from the delusion that a theory is needed to test the facts.
So take the last word in your next missive and enjoy the rest of your day/evening. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
| PorkSol wrote: | | PurpleChest wrote: |
Oddly this is a massive change to B people are dressed up as a tweak.
In a 'true random' blackbox the weaker races get screwed. the emphasis moves utterly to maximising the punch for your TV in EVERY sense. In your race choice, in the level the team sits at, in the skills they choose, in the depth of the sqaud.
It will punish diversity. We will see more Orcs. More Dwarves. More Pomb squads.
|
Could you elaborate on the reasoning behind this a little more?
I take it your thinking is that the loss of the racial suitability factors would more than cancel out the popular races having to play themselves more often?
Is there an easy way to see the current impact of the racial suitability matchups? |
Yes I'll happily elaborate, no thats not what i mean.
If the box scheduler is changed so that it focuses on matching teams by TV alone then TV maximisation clearly gives an even better onfield advantage to the coach, and mnay types of B coach will do anything to maximise that advantage.
importantly one way to maximise TV advantage is to play a race, differing ones at differing TV's, that packs effective punch for its TV. The races are fairly universally accepted to fall into 'tiers'. tier 1 races clearly are more effective for their TV, therefore playing them in a TV focused sytem is a sensible choice.
Of the many factions/ideologies present in the blackbox community several will sieze upon this chance to forward their own ends. Want to face an even feeling game? Tier 1 race it is. Want to feel more powered than opponent? then tier 1 race for you. Value BWR? then play a tier 1 race. Want to grief? play a tier one race. want longevity? play a tier one race.
Now, always there will be groups/factions that do not do this. Some will always just use B to get instant games. Some to have 'fun'. Some to develop fluffy teams, to make bad taste naming jokes, to play games they dont feel are important, to play ones they do feel are important, etc etc etc.
But a LOT will say 'Ok, now if i play a weaker race i will face tougher matches. Right, not going to do that then, I'm going to get me some Orcs. Or some Dorfs. Or a POMB squad. both for effectiveness in game, and personal morale. It may be fun to play race X. But if its going to lose 60% of the time in the hands of the best coaches, perhaps race O will appeal a little more, with its chunky 55% chance to win the average game it faces.
Personally, i couldnt care less. If I'm in a faction its either the 'I just want instant games' or the 'bring me more victims/people flee me in R' faction. Also why i play a lot of Tournaments.
If B changes to match on TV i wont change my race choices. I coach a lot of Tier 1 teams anyway. i love Orcs, Chaos Dwarves, High Elves and even (despite their massive uncolness) Dark Elves. I am also no stranger to Dorfs. While Pomb has never appealed to me I'm certainly not against it and am even developing a team in the spirit of joining in. as a positional player it will always feel odd to me to sacrifice standing postion and cover, but I'm having a go.
I have always played B, except when it punished me for winning. That wasn't right. And likely i still will. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2011 - 01:31 |
|
I guess I look at it similarly to you PC. I don't much care what [B] is, but I don't see how it will ever not favor the tier 1s in any case. I do think that it makes sense (no matter whom it favors) that all teams should have equal chances to play every other team, and right now it seems that TV is the 'best' measure to set up the matches.
It is certainly true that not every TV1700 (to pick a number) is created equally, but how else to quantify teams? Tournaments use TV (or TS) thresholds after all.
One thing that would help is a sudden doubling (or more) of the playerbase, because it would either smooth the problem away, or exacerbate it to the point where it gets 'fixed'. |
|
|
Fela
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2011 - 01:38 |
|
| licker wrote: |
There is data which you for some reason chose to ignore. Not my problem to explain it to you anymore. You also don't seem to understand the difference between theory and hypothesis. The hypothesis that mirror matches happen less frequently than expected in an unbiased draw has been posed, and verified.
|
You see, your problem is that you don't even know what part of our problem is the theory we need to verify via our data. Your hypothesis isn't, that's just an observation regarding the validity of the theory/model we used.
The theory/model part comes into play when we generate our expected result.
In your case, your working theory apparently predicts a distribution that bases only on the racial distribution of races in the box. That is obviously not a good model to evaluate the effect of the racial bias against.
While leaving out the racial bias is a necessity for evaluation, a good model/theory needs to take the _other_ influencing factors (draw size, etc) into account. The goal must be, that by simply including those racial bias factors in your model, we would closely approximate the measured distribution.
So please, come up with that model, so we can actually judge, how great the effect of that racial bias is.
After all, you want Christer to throw away hours of work, so maybe it's time you delivered. |
|
|
The_Murker
Joined: Jan 30, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2011 - 21:48 |
|
"After all, you want Christer to throw away hours of work, so maybe it's time you delivered."
That's the key isn't it. If I were part of a significant effort to make a lot of people happy by CREATING something really cool for them, I'd be pretty reluctant to change it, at least without a very good reason, and I'd expect all of the people I created it for to be pretty darn defensive about any complaints about it. I totally get it. People who play elves in the box are happy about their matches and the way it works. I totally get that too. Ditto for Chaos, ditto for mostly everyone else who has posted in it's defense.
What I was looking for was exactly what PC posted, the history behind the decision, and why box works the way it does. I am very grateful for the time he took to inform newer members. To paraphrase, "Box became an effort to try and allow members to have a reasonable chance at winning despite the race they chose to play." A very good goal. It should encourage diversity, as your race selection should not lower your chances too much. Diversity is an awesome goal indeed. So is fairness. I again salute the effort, Chriser, and all involved. Box works great. It works really great for everyone who plays under 1500 TV. This is every new team, (we know alot of new teams float around at all time) as well as min/maxers and those who don't want to develop. I get good variety with any of my team selections under 1500 TV. (My experience at less than 100 games is too small to count anyway)
Now, let's talk about what the the current algorithm might be having as a side effect. (I recall Christer asking for feedback in one post after the newly released scheduler came on-line a few years back)
First. This is LRB6 now. New world. I WOULD have been in the "reasonable chance at winning, despite my race" camp pre-LRB6.. maybe. But now there is a new sheriff in town. Chaos and CLAWPOMB. Sherrifs are a good thing. I see beauty in the fact that the multitude of Orc and Dwarf teams now really have something for their AV9 warriors to fear. Further, this badge of law is wielded effectively but any skill level of player. There is A LOT of new law in town. Now, these new sherrifs still get paired up against reasonably fair match-ups, meaning they may have a reasonable chance of winning. BUT, their opponents additionally have a very large chance of getting blown to hell in the cas department. This is not so fun, as getting blown to hell usually means losing big style, and it also usually means team development is reversed or halted, which sucks for pixel huggers and fluff writers. Such is the law. No problem, unless... My concern is, the law is less subject to other law.
"I PERSONALLY" do not think Chaos is facing other Chaos in higher TV ranges as other teams attempting to wade into higher TV ranges. This therefore means other races are more likely to be bashed back down, increasing the percentage of Chaos and the like above 1700 TV. Obviously, the more Chaos there is at the top, the more likely it is for the scheduler to be forced to schedule rare mirror matches between Chaos teams, giving one explanation as to why the stats MIGHT not look so conclusive. More important to me than the arguable lack of mirror matches between Chaos teams, is the greater proportion of games against Choas teams that OTHER races face at higher TV. Meaning, even though Chaos plays Chaos once in a while, my humans face it more. Or so "I" say. IF, IF, IF this is true, there will inevitably be less humans, elves, amazons, slann, etc. at higher TV then there might otherwise be able to. Otherwise meaning, if Chaos bashed itself more often, the beatings others take might be less severe and may make a little more room at the top for my humans.
SOME race is the most suitable match for chaos, based on the current system. The system pairs THAT race against chaos to allow both teams a chance to win, if given the opportunity. So although THAT team might win enough, they get beaten on TOO MUCH compared to all of the other races that are NOT a good match for Chaos, according to the current formula. So I submit there is an under-representation of a few races at high TV which the BOT thinks are good match-ups, and an over-representation of other races that the BOT does not think are good match-ups. I feel humans are underrepresented, as we get our asses wupped by Chaos alot.
This of course all hinges on one assumption. That assumption is that certain teams get an OVER helping of Chaos, and other teams get an UNDER serving of Chaos at high TV. Can we prove it? Can we look at it race by race? I will try, and offer the following stat gathering:
For the next few days I will look at the recent matches, searching for games at 1700+ TV that include 1 Chaos team. I will then look at the last 20 matches between those two teams and compare the number of times each has faced a chaos team. If chaos is the most numerous race, both teams should have a fair number of Chaos opponents. Chaos being a good match for itself, it should ideally have an equal serving if the mirror bias is not out of wack. MY HYPOTHESIS is that Chaos will indeed have an under-serving of itself, and other races have a larger number of Chaos beat-downs. (some races more than others) I'm sure there are some flaws in this method, please point them out, but it's what I am prepared to do at this time to solidify the injustice (or lack thereof) in my mind.
Thanks again to PC for the history. |
_________________
Join the wait-list. Watch the action. Leave the Empire. Come to Bretonnia! |
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2011 - 22:01 |
|
Have you ever heard of selection bias Murker?
Thought experiment time!
I flip a coin 10 times... I get 8 heads, therefore the coin must be biased!
Now, what you are proposing is essentially the same...to 'prove' that teams at high TV don't get bashed down by playing a mirror match...you are looking at a high TV team. Do you see the logical problem with this? Any team that has already got bashed down recently by definition is unlikely to be at high TV.
Also, mirror matches don't stop Chaos getting Nurgle or Pact  |
_________________
http://www.calculateyour.tv - an easy way to work out specific team builds.
 |
|
The_Murker
Joined: Jan 30, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2011 - 22:24 |
|
The coins I get. Took a while though. Seriously, I'm looking at TWO high TV teams, and the recent road they took to get there. |
_________________
Join the wait-list. Watch the action. Leave the Empire. Come to Bretonnia! |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2011 - 22:29 |
|
who do i have to kill to get this locked? |
_________________
 |
|
freak_in_a_frock
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2011 - 23:17 |
|
Best thing to do is just let the thread die.
Just let people that have no concept of how the site works have their rant, soon they will get over it and move on. I don't hear anybody complaining about the fact that Qaz has two Amazon teams running with a combined win rating of 45/1/5 . People just have a problem with their pixels getting hurt and feel agrieved when it happens. Then they come into these forums and spout nonsense in the hope that they get their 'justice'. When the rest of is that long ago decided that it is all just a game stopped caring.
All i worry about is the games I am getting. I personally couldn't give two hoots about what games some other coach is getting. What do i care if chaos team play each other 9% or 6% of the time, how does it affect me? As far as i am concerned if chaos teams never faced each other i still wouldn't give a damn. As long as when i activate I get a game all is good in the world. If anybody doesn't like that, then as has been said many times before, the box probably isn't for you. Go to ranked, there you can picxk the sorts of games that you do want to play. Just remember to play within the house ranked rules of not making your team too good or no-one will want to play you. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2011 - 00:10 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | | who do i have to kill to get this locked? |
yourself |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2011 - 00:26 |
|
| licker wrote: | | pythrr wrote: | | who do i have to kill to get this locked? |
yourself |
seriously dude, if that would shut you up, it would almost be worth it.
but more seriously, I'm taking freak's sound advice. enjoy the pit of gibbering rants this thread has become.
may all yr pixels die amusing deaths
pyth |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2011 - 00:54 |
|
lol...
dish it but can't take it
not surprising
may all your pixels live for ever! |
|
|
The_Murker
Joined: Jan 30, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 23, 2011 - 01:36 |
|
Qaz looks like a very good coach indeed. Notice at no time did his near 40 game Amazon team attempt to go above 1300 TV. I wonder why. He knows the winning formula for that team and he's sticking to it. It might be nice to see him have the option of having a zon team in the 1830 Box Minor, but do you think that would be an achievable goal under the current scheduler? |
_________________
Join the wait-list. Watch the action. Leave the Empire. Come to Bretonnia! |
|
|
|
| |
90+ Custom Rosters!
Search
