VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
 Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 03:41 |
 
|
| Hitonagashi wrote: | | You've just made the point I was trying to for me. I didn't run the numbers, because I couldn't be bothered to spend the time to calculate them, and I could see them in my head. Thanks for doing it though...but your situations are exactly what I think is broken |
Pretty sure you're not understanding what I'm saying, here. Your "point", if you can be said to have one, is that you could game the system to circumvent the increase in TV by making a single pass... which is incorrect, as was demonstrated.
It doesn't really matter how much of a TV increase is applied to such teams, so long as it reduces the effect of that type of playstyle. The examples I gave were the absolute maximization of rookie players in order to absolutely minimize the effect the correction equation would apply to the matching TV, and it still applies more than a 100 TV increase.
| Hitonagashi wrote: | | In the case of New Colibri, that's approximately 395 TV drop for *no in game effect* |
So what? The change in TV is, as has been said multiple times, arbitrary! You're treating it like the specific number it is increased by is deeply significant, when in reality it is just meant as a simple, automated way of increasing the effective TV of teams that meet the specific criteria.
This is, again, why I say you should do the math, because you don't seem to actually get it. Working it out in your head isn't panning out so well.
| Vesikannu wrote: | | Is it still worth it? I know some people will do anything, but would games really turn into rookie-passing madness if this was implemented. |
I meant what hitonagashi wants to do if he's trying to maximize the effect... I don't think that doing lots of rookie passing would accomplish much in actual play, under that system. Hitonagashi thinks making a single pass on each player totally nullifies the system, and he's being sent back to remedial math for it.
| Leilond wrote: | | Thus, a formula based on the "legend + lots of rookie" don't work well |
Well, lets check out one of your teams and see.. note, that not many have all that many games under their belt, so none of the [B] teams will trigger the adjustment. Lets look at the [R] team with the most games:
Daa Ratz.. Mean SPP: 32.2143 Median SPP: 14.5
2.22 turns into a 2.2% increase in TV, so their TV goes from being 1760 to being 1799.
That's assuming, of course, it was a Box team, not a Ranked team.
| Ehlers wrote: | But is this system not broken toward teams that perform well with a few key players and lots of fodders/rookies?
But is this system not broken to teams who get miss next game players? |
Find me some examples of teams you think this will "break" on, and we'll do the math. As hitonagashi demonstrated, armchair thought experiments that can't be bothered with things like numbers, tend to overestimate the effect of their theoretical scenarios. Since the actual results can be calculated, we're not actually restricted to imagination-based doomsaying.
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | And there is your problem VM, people whine about it because of the intention of it, not the effectiveness of it.
Best just to ignore the whiners. |
If all people are complaining about is intention then I do ignore them, but it's always best to field any serious thoughts on things... sometimes people think up good points (obviously everyone THINKS they're making good points, but once in a while one actually is good).
| dode74 wrote: | | Isn't the "problem" simply that certain builds do much better than people think they should at certain TVs? |
Thats *A* problem, but not the problem in question. That was my point about people trying to lump all their issues into every thread on every issue.. some people are so caught up in, say, CLPoMB that they take every chance to turn a topic into a discussion of that, or they seriously believe that if any solution for ANYTHING doesn't address CLPoMB, then its not worth doing/thinking about/listening to. That's just obsession. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 04:07 |
|
Clawpomb os the root of all evil. |
_________________
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 09:09 |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 09:17 |
|
I love Clawpomb! |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 09:45 |
|
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 10:47 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: |
| Hitonagashi wrote: | | In the case of New Colibri, that's approximately 395 TV drop for *no in game effect* |
So what? The change in TV is, as has been said multiple times, arbitrary! You're treating it like the specific number it is increased by is deeply significant, when in reality it is just meant as a simple, automated way of increasing the effective TV of teams that meet the specific criteria.
This is, again, why I say you should do the math, because you don't seem to actually get it. Working it out in your head isn't panning out so well.
| Leilond wrote: | | Thus, a formula based on the "legend + lots of rookie" don't work well |
Well, lets check out one of your teams and see.. note, that not many have all that many games under their belt, so none of the [B] teams will trigger the adjustment. Lets look at the [R] team with the most games:
Daa Ratz.. Mean SPP: 32.2143 Median SPP: 14.5
2.22 turns into a 2.2% increase in TV, so their TV goes from being 1760 to being 1799.
. |
Seems I get it better than you do  . |
|
|
Ehlers
Joined: Jun 26, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 13:14 |
|
Oki let us walk through and please correct on long the way. And yes we will be doing some theory testing because some people WILL game the system to some point.
Here is my team. And I would not consider that a minmax team due to str upgrade and taking doubles where it would maybe have been better to take claw and PO.
https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=640613
Mean: 24,92308 & Median: 21 & 1.17%
Now they play a match and following players get mng: 2,5,8 (round up to 11 players with JM)
Mean: 23,73 & Median: 8 & 2.97%
TV: 1620 -> 1668
Now we add one rotter to the team, because at that TV range and only 11 players is just equal to heavy beating and most likely another slaughter.
So 12 players
Mean: 21,75 & Median: 6,5 & 3.35%
TV: 1660 -> 1716
So now by adding a rookie rotter that cost 40 original, now it cost me 56 instead
Well for me 12 players might not be enough and I want to add another rotter just to be sure of having to on the bench.
So 13 players
Mean: 20,08 & Median: 5 & 4,02%
TV: 1700 -> 1768
So adding a 13 rotter now cost me 68 instead of 40.
I might be wrong, my calculations might be wrong. IF so, please do and go and correct me.
BUT if my calculations are right, it seems this system force me to keep minmax and not add more players as that will increase my TV and each added rotter will be more and more expensive. So this system in my eyes forces to keep my team low.
Over 31 games I have retired 3 healthy rotters and lost 31 due to either death or permanent inj on the player.
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | And there is your problem VM, people whine about it because of the intention of it, not the effectiveness of it.
Best just to ignore the whiners. |
And no, I am not whining. I am concerned with this system claim that it is superior to the current system. The current system is not perfect, but if I have I rather pick the lesser evil between two evils. And Jimmy, this system is actually going to bring impact on you as I can see you have or still is playing a great deal of nurgle in the black box.
Now I brough some data. VoodooMike you claim your system is surpior, I think it is actually time you sit down and do some numbers cruching as other people have suggested and show theoretical cases or use already existing teams to backup your claim instead of just claiming and ask us others to go and do your work for you. So now I just did a little of your work, then feed back. Thanks. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 13:22 |
|
I didn't mean you Ehlers, just in general, people don't really care so much about the TV optimized Amazon and Lizardmen teams that are almost unbeatable. They don't care about teams that have been knocked down in TV by loads of injuries left with a few stars. They don't like the teams that play 100 games with a couple of clawpombers. And that's pretty much what 99% of the noise is about on this subject really. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
I find it funny that after years of complaints on the Team Strength system we used here prior to LRB6, we now have a 12 page thread arguing to bring it back (sure, in some other shape but it's conceptually the same). |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 13:35 |
|
Exactly my point, no matter how good the system is whiners are gonna whine.
The guys with the "bad" intentions now are gonna have them no matter how you match teams and will always try to optimize/abuse the matching criteria.
Best to just stick with what we have and ignore the c-pomb noise IMO. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 13:35 |
|
| Christer wrote: | | I find it funny that after years of complaints on the Team Strength system we used here prior to LRB6, we now have a 12 page thread arguing to bring it back (sure, in some other shape but it's conceptually the same). |
That's the problem with democracy; it turns out people don't really know what they want. |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| gjopie wrote: | | That's the problem with democracy; it turns out people don't really know what they want. |
FUMBBL isn't a democracy. I do listen to people, but in the end it's my call what I decide to implement or remove. |
|
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 14:05 |
|
| Christer wrote: | | FUMBBL isn't a democracy. I do listen to people, but in the end it's my call what I decide to implement or remove. |
Absolutely - mine was just meant as a general comment. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 14:06 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | Exactly my point, no matter how good the system is whiners are gonna whine.
The guys with the "bad" intentions now are gonna have them no matter how you match teams and will always try to optimize/abuse the matching criteria.
Best to just stick with what we have and ignore the c-pomb noise IMO. |
This is a rather 'stick your head in the sand' policy and I believe untrue.
Playing around with 'in game' mechanics, I agree; dangerous road. However making improvements to the management system, would make it harder to game the system, and make it a better environment. Ok, you may not get it right first time or get it perfect, new ways of gaming the system may also appear. We can always look at those problems when they arise.
Defining and redefining the formula for rating a team for match making isn't so much different than calculating the formula on how teams are matched really. They're both a set of numbers, for rating teams so they can play an evenly matched team.
I hear you on the anti clawpomb issue, it doesn't need to raise it's head here. No more than any other overly powerful formula anyway.
All this said, I still think Spookeh's FF fix, is the right and simplest direction to test (if Christer was interested). However he knows my thoughts on this anyway. |
|
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 14:10 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: |
All this said, I still think Spookeh's FF fix, is the right and simplest direction to test (if Christer was interested). However he knows my thoughts on this anyway. |
+1. Having thought about it...I like most of the aspects of this, especially the simplicity of it and ease of explaining to new players. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
