Leilond
Joined: Jan 02, 2012
|
 Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 14:12 |
 
|
If the problem is a specific form of minmaxing (firing good players to keep the TV low), we can simply remove the opportunity to retire players that do not have nigglings or any other permanent inj, unless they have 76+ skill points and forcing rookie hiring in place of journeyman if you have golds equal or more than 3 times your most expensive rookie player.
THIS will prevent minmaxing. Without strange and complicate formulas. Prevent minmaxer to do what they usually do
IF you want to prevent minmaxing. If you think that minmaxing is ok, well... it's ok X) |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 14:14 |
|
| 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). |
| Quote: | | Before anyone gets defensive... no, I don't really expect Christer to implement this in Box, it is more of a thought experiment. |
Not arguing to to bring it back. Just arguing that it is better than Mike's idea. 
But yes I think Mike is right in that we will always be arguing that some part of TS is wrong. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 14:22 |
|
I agree that Sp00kehs idea of counting FF as double TV for MM is the best idea in this thread. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
stej
Joined: Jan 05, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 14:38 |
|
Can we calculate some sort of CV?
Cheese Value = (Gold in Bank + Value of all retired players + (Blodgers + Pombers) * 10000) / 1000000 and match on that? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 14:47 |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 14:51 |
|
Yes Koadah, I think simple TV based MM is fine. However of all the ideas that have been posted this is the least offensive to me. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 15:22 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | pythrr wrote: | | Clawpomb os the root of all evil. |
No, the love of clawpomb is the root of all evil. |
 hehe |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 15:23 |
|
| Leilond wrote: | | If the problem is a specific form of minmaxing (firing good players to keep the TV low), we can simply remove the opportunity to retire players that do not have nigglings or any other permanent inj, |
never going to happen.
oh, wait - this applies to the entire thread.... |
|
|
pubstar
Joined: Jun 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 15:27 |
|
The thing that I don't understand is the specific objection to min/maxing, and why people want it to be stopped.
Unless I've misunderstood, the 'issue' is that certain teams hover at low TV beating up on new teams. What problem does this represent, exactly?
If you want to develop an awesome team, just suck it up for a few games and get your TV higher than those of the min/maxers.
If you think the coach ratings/team records of min/maxers are unfairly inflated... who cares? This seems rather petty to me.
Again, maybe I'm not grasping the definition of min/maxing properly, but it seems like having a team with a decently high TV avoids them, and the only consequence of letting them min/max is that rookie teams have a hard time starting up. Which, in my personal experience, they do anyway, with a lack of rr's/block. |
_________________
DOTP!
3DB Highlander!
Fill the Box Grid! |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 15:32 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | JimmyFantastic wrote: | | I agree that Sp00kehs idea of counting FF as double TV for MM is the best idea in this thread. |
I think it was established while on LRB4 that the good coaches don't like being penalised for being good. Some would like FF not counting at all. |
There's a subtle difference though. This is team based, not coach based. So this gives high CR coaches the opportunity still, to play less successful builds and rosters without penalty (on top of CR rising and falling of course), where as calculating CR into match making wouldn't.
So successful teams playing outside of where they should be, would be hit rather than coaches. Successful teams, playing at their 'natural' TV, should meet teams of or around the same ff (a lot of the time). |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 16:12 |
|
| pubstar wrote: | The thing that I don't understand is the specific objection to min/maxing, and why people want it to be stopped.
Unless I've misunderstood, the 'issue' is that certain teams hover at low TV beating up on new teams. What problem does this represent, exactly?
If you want to develop an awesome team, just suck it up for a few games and get your TV higher than those of the min/maxers.
If you think the coach ratings/team records of min/maxers are unfairly inflated... who cares? This seems rather petty to me.
Again, maybe I'm not grasping the definition of min/maxing properly, but it seems like having a team with a decently high TV avoids them, and the only consequence of letting them min/max is that rookie teams have a hard time starting up. Which, in my personal experience, they do anyway, with a lack of rr's/block. |
That's why this is not being taken very seriously by some.
Suck it up until you get to 1500/1600 and you'll be fine.
Until you get to 1900 that is. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 16:17 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | JimmyFantastic wrote: | | I agree that Sp00kehs idea of counting FF as double TV for MM is the best idea in this thread. |
I think it was established while on LRB4 that the good coaches don't like being penalised for being good. Some would like FF not counting at all. |
There's a subtle difference though. This is team based, not coach based. So this gives high CR coaches the opportunity still, to play less successful builds and rosters without penalty (on top of CR rising and falling of course), where as calculating CR into match making wouldn't.
So successful teams playing outside of where they should be, would be hit rather than coaches. Successful teams, playing at their 'natural' TV, should meet teams of or around the same ff (a lot of the time). |
Not a huge deal I suppose but you still looking at giving away or missing out on babes when you shouldn't from time to time. It doesn't take that long to cruise past the min/max zone into perfect blood bowl waters. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2012 - 16:40 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
It doesn't take that long to cruise past the min/max zone into perfect blood bowl waters. |
Generalizations FTW!!!!
Even though I agree with you on this, I don't think it's the point most people take exception to.
All of this gets back to just what the hell B is actually supposed to be. People throw around nebulous terms like 'fair' and 'balance' and 'fun' all the time. Saying that B is for any team to play any other team (with the TV limits, and the mirror match, and the race factors) doesn't sit that well (due to the way most people conceptualize a 'blind' match maker).
So then you get in this gray area about what B *should* be. It already *is* what it is obviously, but apparently that's not something that many people think it *should* be.
Oh well. I guess. Love it or leave it!
Nah.
Improve it? And round and round she goes...
But, the crux will always be not what magic match making formula is used, the crux will be what is B supposed to accomplish in the first place.
So, answer that, or define it, or just accept it, because all of this debate really only applies to B. R and L and I assume S simply don't really care. |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
Something I would find interesting to do would be to take a very statistical approach to building a new team strength formula. For example, analyze win percentages based on the number of players on each team and see if there's a correlation. Them do the same for the number of block players, number of dodge vs tackle, etc. After coming up with a large number of weights / correlation functions, you'd combine it all into a best-estimate win percentage which would be fairly easy to apply to a pair of teams.
One major difference from TV, TW and TS would be that you couldn't give a strength to a single team, but instead require a pair of teams for evaluation.
This method could be extended to the number of expected TDs for each team, and the number of casualties as well resulting in what should be a very very strong match-making system which would be very difficult to "game".
It'd be a fairly large project to do, but it'd absolutely be possible to do and I have a feeling that the resulting system would be practically as fair as it could be. |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
I'll breach basic forum protocol by posting twice in a row here..
| licker wrote: | | All of this gets back to just what [...] B is actually supposed to be. |
At first, the blackbox wasn't something I thought would be popular at all. I spent a long time resisting building it, because I knew that it would lead to the kind of dialogue that's persisting around it. Of course it will attract killer teams. A lot of people enjoy playing killer teams, and it's not so easy to do in R because there's a fair share of people avoiding exactly those teams. A number of suggestions float around where I'm asked to impose racial restrictions into B, or somehow force people to play against killer teams in R. From my perspective, I don't want to force people to play teams they don't want to. If they join a tournament then fine, you play what you're paired against. But even that is optional and in no way does the site force you to participate.
Blackbox does indeed generate a lot of arguing. A lot of people say it has to change for whatever reason. But one fact that speaks quite clearly for itself is: Blackbox is the most popular division on the site. Should I risk killing the division to give a few vocal players a division they envision would be the best thing since sliced bread? Somewhat melodramatic, sure.. But the fact is that any change is risking reducing the fun for the people who are actually out there, playing games right now rather than pushing their own vision of what the division should be.
Now, don't get me wrong.. I'm pushing the issue to its extreme to make the point, and it's really not as black and white as I stated above, but there _is_ wisdom in the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Is the Blackbox broken? I don't think so. Could it be improved? Sure, but it's difficult for me to alienate the avid B players in order to increase its popularity. It's really really hard to justify the risk when there are so many players who enjoy the format as it works now.
I didn't really think the blackbox would maintain popularity because of these killer teams dominating it, and I only did the blackbox development in the first place because there was a small chance it'd be a success. It turned out my instinct was wrong, and I'll happily admit it because in the end it means more people get more enjoyment out of the site. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
