Ziggyny
Joined: Mar 20, 2013
|
 Posted:
Jan 04, 2014 - 12:02 |
 
|
|
Overhamsteren
Joined: May 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 04, 2014 - 12:10 |
|
Although both human teams had better suitability with the dwarves in that draw but the make-up of the rest of the activated teams made the macth-up happen. |
_________________
Like a Tiger Defying the Laws of Gravity
Thanks to the BBRC for all the great work you did. |
|
Igvy
Joined: Apr 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 04, 2014 - 23:55 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Igvy wrote: | | That the current system will choose a match up with 500k TV difference over a 100k TV difference match up. |
For experienced teams? Yes we know that.
Doh, I wasted my time trying to spot the bug.  |
Yes, I understand the restriction was removed. However I didn't realise that TV difference held so little weight when setting up a match.
I'm just calling into question if that makes sense.
While I understand the hard limits have been removed, wouldn't it still be better to link teams closer TV? |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 05, 2014 - 00:14 |
|
It is an anti-minmax rule. Teams with a lot of games played get less chance to play new teams. |
|
|
happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jan 05, 2014 - 00:26 |
|
| Igvy wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | Igvy wrote: | | That the current system will choose a match up with 500k TV difference over a 100k TV difference match up. |
For experienced teams? Yes we know that.
Doh, I wasted my time trying to spot the bug. |
Yes, I understand the restriction was removed. However I didn't realise that TV difference held so little weight when setting up a match.
I'm just calling into question if that makes sense.
While I understand the hard limits have been removed, wouldn't it still be better to link teams closer TV? |
It has a lot of weight still. Scores in the 500 area are terrible. If there is any other team closer with a similar number of games it would likely have been a better match.
To recap again (this has been stated a lot but it does not sink in): If there are 4 teams out there and a match is possible, it's going to find it. If you don't want to take the chance of a large TV difference, then what is required under the new system is to activate at a time with more coaches and/or activate a cover team (one with a higher TV). If you activate a 1600 and a 1200 TV team each with the same number of games you're going to see the 1600 team matched if the only available match is an 1800 TV team. This system encourages coaches to activate more teams and a wider spread. The only folks who get nailed are those who activate one team low or high, they are the teams that could see a large TV difference match.
That's not a total endorsement of the system I'm stating up there, that's just how it works. |
_________________
Come join us in #metabox, the Discord channel for HLP, ARR, and E.L.F. in the box!
 |
|
Igvy
Joined: Apr 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 05, 2014 - 01:15 |
|
| happygrue wrote: | | Igvy wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | Igvy wrote: | | That the current system will choose a match up with 500k TV difference over a 100k TV difference match up. |
For experienced teams? Yes we know that.
Doh, I wasted my time trying to spot the bug. |
Yes, I understand the restriction was removed. However I didn't realise that TV difference held so little weight when setting up a match.
I'm just calling into question if that makes sense.
While I understand the hard limits have been removed, wouldn't it still be better to link teams closer TV? |
It has a lot of weight still. Scores in the 500 area are terrible. If there is any other team closer with a similar number of games it would likely have been a better match.
To recap again (this has been stated a lot but it does not sink in): If there are 4 teams out there and a match is possible, it's going to find it. If you don't want to take the chance of a large TV difference, then what is required under the new system is to activate at a time with more coaches and/or activate a cover team (one with a higher TV). If you activate a 1600 and a 1200 TV team each with the same number of games you're going to see the 1600 team matched if the only available match is an 1800 TV team. This system encourages coaches to activate more teams and a wider spread. The only folks who get nailed are those who activate one team low or high, they are the teams that could see a large TV difference match.
That's not a total endorsement of the system I'm stating up there, that's just how it works. |
2 points
1) This match up wasn't the only one, there was a match up to another team the coach had activated. This would have had a diff of only 100TV, however all other things being equal it still chose the 500TV difference match up. Hence I'm calling into question, do the match up rules make sense?
2) So people who live in off peak areas either get used to it, or stop playing? |
|
|
Kryten
Joined: Sep 02, 2003
|
| Igvy wrote: | 2 points
1) This match up wasn't the only one, there was a match up to another team the coach had activated. This would have had a diff of only 100TV, however all other things being equal it still chose the 500TV difference match up. Hence I'm calling into question, do the match up rules make sense?
2) So people who live in off peak areas either get used to it, or stop playing? |
Again, if you want coverage for your 15+ game low TV team, activate a bigger TV team with 15+ games. The main point of the new scheduler is that rookie teams should not have to endure predation by griefers with minmax squads. This necessarily means that there's a loser in this arrangement, and specifically the loser is broken teams with 15+ matches. Those teams are especially likely to get such a large TV difference pairing. I think this is the right decision.
Those of us in off-hours time zones love it. Traditionally, we would have to activate a large number of teams to have a chance at matching, and non-draws were still frequent. Now, it is sufficient to activate just a few of varied TV/games played, and get four coaches into the draw. |
|
|
nufflehatesme
Joined: Nov 02, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 05, 2014 - 02:28 |
|
| Kryten wrote: | | Igvy wrote: | 2 points
1) This match up wasn't the only one, there was a match up to another team the coach had activated. This would have had a diff of only 100TV, however all other things being equal it still chose the 500TV difference match up. Hence I'm calling into question, do the match up rules make sense?
2) So people who live in off peak areas either get used to it, or stop playing? |
Again, if you want coverage for your 15+ game low TV team, activate a bigger TV team with 15+ games. The main point of the new scheduler is that rookie teams should not have to endure predation by griefers with minmax squads. This necessarily means that there's a loser in this arrangement, and specifically the loser is broken teams with 15+ matches. Those teams are especially likely to get such a large TV difference pairing. I think this is the right decision.
Those of us in off-hours time zones love it. Traditionally, we would have to activate a large number of teams to have a chance at matching, and non-draws were still frequent. Now, it is sufficient to activate just a few of varied TV/games played, and get four coaches into the draw. |
agreed. more matchups the better.
big tv difference is no issue in league, why make it one in the box?
as stated, there are ways to avoid big tv differences if you really don't want to play them.
I personally would like to see more weight on games played rather than tv. my 1800tv, 300 game team has missed a few activations due to a certain 1300tv, 500 game team getting matched against 1200-1300tv 20-25 game teams, instead of mine.
I lossed out on the suitability score by about 50 points or so I think. |
|
|
Igvy
Joined: Apr 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 05, 2014 - 02:31 |
|
Well if people are happy, that is all that matters I suppose. |
|
|
Dunenzed
Joined: Oct 28, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 05, 2014 - 04:51 |
|
I'm also enjoying seeing the odd game with big TV differences. Seeing Morg and Griff on the pitch at the same time is fun. |
_________________
Join the Human League Premiership! |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 05, 2014 - 08:52 |
|
because MOAR GAMES |
_________________
 |
|
Igvy
Joined: Apr 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 11, 2014 - 23:30 |
|
Well I've got to reopen this. I did agree that if people only wanted more games this was a good change.
However https://fumbbl.com/p/stats that doesn't appear to be the case.
If the match up isn't fair, being forced to watch your team lose/die sucks big time. It may not happen often but when it does, it puts you off the box.
So while it seemed good at first, people got sick of it quick.
I don't really understand it to be honest, all teams will peak somewhere between 20-50 games. Then all the players die and you basically have a starting roster, with massive FF bloat. This change makes it really hard for all teams in this position. (Which the less experienced coaches are more often in)
More games - Yes! Just not at the cost of a good match up.
Please consider reverting. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2014 - 00:02 |
|
Maybe not reverting, but refining. Those examples above are scary. And after such loss there is usually better retiring the team, as the next game could be also against high TV team, and I wonder who has the willpower to endure twice. So I can see people retiring teams after 30 or so games even before such pairing is possible, and game the system so that they get the equal matchup. I think increasing the TV's share could help somewhat. |
_________________
 |
|
Overhamsteren
Joined: May 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2014 - 04:50 |
|
TV 1580k Ogre (19) vs TV 1550k Chaos Dwarf (332) @986
TV 1550k Chaos Dwarf (332) vs TV 1590k Undead (69) @981
A 19 games team is preferable to a 69 games team to face a 332 games team because of a 10k TV difference? |
_________________
Like a Tiger Defying the Laws of Gravity
Thanks to the BBRC for all the great work you did. |
|
Igvy
Joined: Apr 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2014 - 05:29 |
|
That example is silly, also number of games has almost nothing to do with the scores. |
|
|
|
|
| |
4,000TV!
Search
