Moxy
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
May 30, 2005 - 11:46 |
 
|
I think the best way to fix the ranked div is to have the client use Team Strength not Team Rating for handicaps.
That way it is a more fair division with higher TR teams. |
|
|
Smess
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2005 - 11:55 |
|
1) I fully support the idea of rewarding a team that has played against every race (maybe excluding flings and gobbos).
I believe that a good coach should be ready to take on any race with any team.
(This doesn't mean blindly accepting each offer, but you could at least check the team and see if you feel like it).
Personnaly I've learned a lot from playing a wide spread of races with every team, and had some of the most fun and most amazing wins that way.
I think it should be encouraged. Some proposals above might be usefull for this.
It doesn't change anything to the open format of ranked, it just increases the competiveness, and rewards coaches with guts.
Hence, it is a positive rule i'd say.
2) I used to didn't like Ranked tourneys, because most of the time not the best coach, but the one with the best team won.
Also I felt that the reward in CR points was way to high.
As Christer explained it above as a countermesure for cherrypicking, I realize that it could be indeed effective.
But! there should be a way heavier restriction on TR/SR, which means a lot more tourneys under 200/200 rating (That's the 'real' Bloodbowl for me). That doesn't give anyone with a killer 400/350 team the chance of abusing these tourneys to improve his CR.
Excellent thread so far, BTW |
|
|
Mezir
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2005 - 11:55 |
|
LRB compliant, Moxy.
As in, what you suggest wouldn't be. |
_________________
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day; set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Jan 26, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2005 - 12:19 |
|
| BunnyPuncher wrote: | Just had a simple idea...
We should make Div-X a no big guy league... cut down the power curve for the av 9 teams a bit... |
Excellent suggestion. I don't know whether this could revive divX or not, but it surely would be worth a try. |
|
|
Mezir
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2005 - 12:22 |
|
Well, "no aging" hasn't revived DivX and that is a BIG attractive force for all those coaches constantly bitching about aging.
Are there still non-LRB teams in DivX that were grandfathered in?
Edit: Yes there are Pact teams in DivX. Those should be all be moved to Unranked, in my opinion.
Either that or DivX should be restarted from scratch, with only LRB compliant teams participating.
But this thread was about Ranked... |
_________________
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day; set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. |
|
thesquig
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 30, 2005 - 13:56 |
|
I've read the topic so far and come to a few obvious conclusions that we should bear in mind. The idea of an open format is great and this is what we all love about fumbbl. However, I believe making the open format competative is where the system is flawed. Its too open to abuse, ie cherrypicking.
I seem to have gained a bit of support for my solution of private and public rankings. It seems people are not too bothered about CR but more worried about the welfare of their teams. People 'cherrypick' for their teams sake rather for CR purposes. I know this is just an ideas thread, but is there an intent to the thread, to actually take up one of the solutions and change ranked? |
_________________
Nuffle Sucks!!!
 |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2005 - 10:28 |
|
I just came across another suggestion, that could help for a more accurate TS:
Guard gives +0.5 on TS for that player. As we all know, guard gets better the more guard is in the team. So I would suggest, changing it to +0.15*(# of guard on the team). This way you could see the ability of dwarven teams, to make 2d-blocks so difficult without ST4 or massguard yourself. |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2005 - 10:38 |
|
| johan wrote: | | heinz wrote: | | As I've seen the development in ranked during the year I've been here it's become increasingly bashy - just look at the game finder at any time. The [r] tournaments help counter this trend, but I would like to support Circular Logic's proposal of upgrading high AV's impact on TS too. |
I disagree. The point of Team Strength is to arrange balanced matches (which it mostly does an alright job of), not help team developement along. If the TS value of Armour were increased, this would increase the already high winning ratio of agility teams. This is not the solution.
This doesn't mean there houldn't be some tweaking of the Strength calculations - Lizardmen suffer badly from it, for instance.
/johan |
Maybe bashy teams would win more games if they took more ball playing skills, and paid more attention on winning rather than bashing? Saying that because elves win games that they are stronger than teams that people avoid playing is quite strange. |
|
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2005 - 17:53 |
|
| Britnoth wrote: |
Maybe bashy teams would win more games if they took more ball playing skills, and paid more attention on winning rather than bashing? Saying that because elves win games that they are stronger than teams that people avoid playing is quite strange. |
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but you're quite right that some bashy team bashes as an end rather than as a mean.
Team Strength is supposed to arrange matches that get as even as possible when it comes to winning. That means that if elves, as a rule, are better at winning a match at the same team strength as, say, a Chaos team, then the TS system isn't working perfectly. Of course, this is assuming the same playing skill as well as actually playing to win (some Chaos coaches are, of course, the main offenders when it comes to playing for the carnage rather than the win).
That is, the TS system does not, and should not, take into consideration whether your team is likely to out of the match better or worse for the wear.
/johan |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2005 - 18:36 |
|
| johan wrote: | That is, the TS system does not, and should not, take into consideration whether your team is likely to out of the match better or worse for the wear.
/johan |
And that is why the TS system is totally broken.
Example: str 200 elves vs str 200 chaos.
If the str is correct (whatever skills they have) and the coaches are equally skilled, then each side should have an even chance to win. But, the chaos team on average will deal more casualties.
The teams have equal chance to win, but one team suffers more injuries, while the other gains more spp? How is that equal?
If you have team str this way: ie totally set to how likely a team is to win asuming you sacrifice the entire team to do it, then no wonder elves only play elves. It isnt that they avoid being bashed, it is that if the system works as intended, they suffer more cas, get less spp and dont even get the consolation of winning more games. Only a stupid coach will play out and out bashing teams.
But, team STR isnt solely used for coach ranking anymore: its also in the rules that you have to be within 40 STR of the other team for it to count. Now it is a requirement in finding an even game to play. So, isnt it about time to value bashing skills based on how good the skill is, not just on how it helps you win that 1 single game? Until the str formula is changed to reflect how good a skill is relative to other skills, not just its ability to win you 1 game, then the system directly forces coaches to only play elves. |
|
|
ruoste
Joined: Jun 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2005 - 18:43 |
|
one thing that could help the newbies would be the "immunity" of CR 150. Opponent wouldn't get cr from coaches who have exactly 150cr, then newbies wouldn't be cherried before they would have played atleast one game and got some hang of how to play (and stuff.)
Other way would be the immunity for players with say, less than 5-10 games played.
this was just a silly idea, but worth considering. |
|
|
nin
Joined: May 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2005 - 19:35 |
|
I'm starting in fumbbl so I do'nt know many of its features very much. I'm not very interested in CR now, but may be that I will so I have to say that I like Ranked as open as it is, even if I'm not used to desing teams for such a leage. But there are other divisions with diferent rules so if you want to try changes and restrict oponents may be you can create a restrictive division where you have to play against the teams selected as the more apropiate for your team for example. |
|
|
vanGorn
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2005 - 20:03 |
|
| Moxy wrote: | I think the best way to fix the ranked div is to have the client use Team Strength not Team Rating for handicaps.
That way it is a more fair division with higher TR teams. |
Well, that would not be LRB compliant.
Anyway, if non-LRB, then I would prefer income being calculated based on TS. |
_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.
|
|
Azurus
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2005 - 20:35 |
|
| Britnoth wrote: | | johan wrote: | That is, the TS system does not, and should not, take into consideration whether your team is likely to out of the match better or worse for the wear.
/johan |
And that is why the TS system is totally broken. |
I'm kinda torn between these two viewpoints myself.
On the one hand, it makes sense that survivability is not taken into consideration, because ranked is open, and therefore effectively just a string of one-off games. That said, this same feature makes TS virtually useless in tourneys or scheduled leagues.
On the other side, the main weakness of the system is that it assumes both coaches are actually trying to win. It seems that recently there has been a rise in the number of teams that aren't. Of course elves will win most of their games vs bashy sides if the bashy coach doesn't even care if he wins.
I barely know what to think anymore. Still, I doubt it will make too much difference, I rarely make much sense anyhow  |
_________________
*This is a public safety announcement. Azurus is a cynical, sarcastic idiot. Please ignore any and everything he may say. Thank you for your attention.* |
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 02, 2005 - 11:34 |
|
| Azurus wrote: |
I'm kinda torn between these two viewpoints myself.
On the one hand, it makes sense that survivability is not taken into consideration, because ranked is open, and therefore effectively just a string of one-off games. That said, this same feature makes TS virtually useless in tourneys or scheduled leagues. |
Yeah, it is. TS is used for two things currently: to adjust CR gains (where it's absolutely proper that it measures nothing save the actual win chances), and to help coaches pick reasonably even matches. Chance of winning is a variable that is at least somewhat measurable, while every coach has different views on how big risks they are willing to take with their teams. Some people are happy for a win even when they lose two good players, others would rather lose than have an unskilled Zombie die.
TS isn't necessary for tourneys or fixed leagues, because there the matches are already arranged. It's a tool for finding matches at around your own strength, and despite its imperfections, it does a lot better job of it than pure TR.
/johan |
|
|
|
|
| |
Borg Invasion
Search
