harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
 Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 11:49 |
 
|
@Dode:
Well I think you circumnavigated Garion's point. It's not that they win everything, it's that they don't allow anything else to stay up there.
And that on the overall picture, attrition isn't way out of wack, but it's delivered by one source only. So if you had 2 equal elf teams over 2 seasons. One had a favourable draw over the 2 seasons, the other got the chaos team back to back. This one team basically becomes the king maker.
So it's a valid point, isn't it? Tone down their king making slightly (Chaos should still be the number 1 dishers of pain at high end though) and give other teams more pain giving ability (most likely improved fouling).
What format of match making do OFTL use? I'm right in thinking that although you don't match make with TV, you still use it for inducements right? |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 12:02 |
|
@ garion - So you want the pain to be dished out in a different manner, and more equally? No real issue with that, but matching by something other than TV will reduce the effect of any issue as you said yourself. Perhaps that's a better place to start.
@ HM - I'm not sure they do become the kingmaker. The dice are the kingmakers, always, and we've all had games where CPOMB fails to do anything and we've all had games where Elves manage a pitch clearance against Lizards, for example. Unless we have stats on match-by-match casualties then it's not reasonable to say that the effect your claiming is actually there.
OFTL is similar to ranked in that matching is by challenge but inducements are by TV. Unfortunately, unlike the main OFL league, it's limited by the Cyanide lack of stars, Slann and Pact. The main OFL league runs scheduled with all the stars and races. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 12:07 |
|
| dode74 wrote: |
@ HM - I'm not sure they do become the kingmaker. The dice are the kingmakers, always, and we've all had games where CPOMB fails to do anything and we've all had games where Elves manage a pitch clearance against Lizards, |
thats a ridiculous thing to say dode and you know it. Of course dice rapes happen. But you are referring to isolated incidents. Not a large enough sample size me thinks 
There are stats to back up just how far in front the CPOMB teams are in terms of damaged caused. Lots and lots of stats. I am happy for chaos to lead the charts that koadah publishes but I think the gulf is too big. As HM, and myself say, nerf CPOMB a little increase fouling power a little and that gulf will be reduced a little. That is all.
Anyway I am done now. Everyone should play flings they are awesome. Unnerf Master chef 2013 |
_________________
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 12:13 |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 12:13 |
|
@ garion - koadah's charts only show a mean, which is pretty useless by itself. We'd need the data to see if there is actually a difference (which was my point about the dicerapes), and I suspect (not looked yet) that there isn't until you get to very high TVs, at which point the sample size becomes very small.
I'm certainly not averse to house rules at all, and if it works better for box then that's great. Thing is, you need to go one way or the other. If you accept that TV matching doesn't work with these rules and you have to either:
a) Keep the matching system and change the rules, or
b) Change the matching system and see if the rules fit better.
Given the lack of appetite for either house rules or for a different form of matching then it seems that FUMBBL is stuck. |
|
|
Verminardo
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 12:18 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | If you accept that TV matching doesn't work with these rules and you have to either:
a) Keep the matching system and change the rules, or
b) Change the matching system and see if the rules fit better.
Given the lack of appetite for either house rules or for a different form of matching then it seems that FUMBBL is stuck. |
It sounds pretty obvious when you put it that way.
That's assuming the Box is as broken as some very vocal posters think, which is not a given. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 12:21 |
|
Well I wasn't claiming anything. I was just saying you avoided the point. I'm not really interested in getting involved in the whole CPOMB debate, and it's pretty pointless to do so. Almost everyone agrees there is a problem there.
Well how is OFTL, not a TV based league? It sounds exactly the same as ranked to me, which pretty much makes it a TV based league in my eyes.
If you're going to drop TV, you've got to do it almost entirely, including inducements. The only things I'd use it for are Spiralling Expenses and changes. By that I mean, if a team went up or down in TV, that should have an effect on the teams competitiveness and teams it would get matched against.
The actual TV, wouldn't be shown to the coach or have much of an impact. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 12:29 |
|
@ HM - OFTL is TV based but not TV matched. R isn't TV matched either, once you get past the first few games.
Nothing wrong with dropping TV as a matching and inducement value criteria. I already posted VoodoMike's TV+ idea (which koadah dislikes, but that's just koadah  ) which uses a combination of team record and TV to match and give inducements. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 12:44 |
|
You are free to choose any match you like. However the criteria you are given to choose games is TV. The difference between Box and Ranked match making is you cannot refuse a Box game, so a coach can make it how he likes. Ranked unpopular builds get few games, so coaches pretty-them up a little. This is the main differences between builds and match making in the division.
My idea (without going to exact figures as I would not know them) would be the following.
A team has a power level. This is based off of a combination of recent win/loss record/FF/ recent changes in TV as explained above.
So lets say (again don't quote me on exact figures, this is just an example). A team has a W/D/L record of 1/2/2 win 2 points, draw 1 point, loss null point. This would give them a score of 4. + the FF say 5=9. +/- changes in TV since their last game. Let's say they lost 10TV (for arguments sake lets call that one point). Making a total power score of 4+5-1=8.
The system is then run in divisions. These divisions can be visible or not to the coaches. However each powerscore (hopefully if there was the playerbase) would have it's own division at the lower end, and more per division as you went up. The division would be rolling, so after each game your powerscore would be worked out, and then whether you went up or down a division.
Inducements could be worked out on powerscore or division.
TV would be used for converting petty cash, SE and changes to a team (as described above).
Coaches could get awards (to keep Cloggy interested) as they went up the divisions. So let's say there were 10 of these visible/invisible divisions. When you made a team you'd get 1 star to that race. And each time you went up a division, it adds a star (as in a school reward type star). Once you got to the top division, you got all the stars and a number. The lower the number, the higher you got in the top division. This system would appeal to the collector type player. Collecting stars for each race. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 12:52 |
|
Your system is similar to TV+, although I think your divisions are perhaps an overcomplication (but nice fluff), and TV does have some small value in terms of predicting the winner, so is used as a part of the matchup. Both systems look to match largely based on performance.
TV+ looks at wins-losses (so instead of 2/1/0 it's 1/0/-1) and gives the total a value in TV (30 per point, for example), adding it to the team's TV to give a matching value (TV+). TV+ is then used to match and to award inducements. See here: http://voodoomath.wordpress.com/author/voodoochat/
I'm certainly not averse to your system, and the data showed that matching based on something other than TV is likely to give fairer matches. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 12:55 |
|
Everyone needs to stop crying. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 13:01 |
|
Well there are 3 basic goals to idea.
1. To give fairer match ups.
2. To try to make the best team you can build, not the best bang for buck.
3. To feel you are making progress not treading water.
The divisional aspect isn't actually necessary for the formula to work. However it does aid the formula and gives coaches the incentive to keep making their teams more powerful. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 13:03 |
|
I believe, HM, we are basically in agreement on this 
Shame there's no appetite for change... |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 13:17 |
|
To a certain degree, I think we are.
I had a look at VoodooMike's page, and I found it pretty hard to follow. I'm no mathsman. However as I saw it (maybe I got that impression because of Plasmoid being involved) that this system is to give fairer match ups (eventually in the same environment). My plan would be to change how a coach thinks, therefore changing the environment.
My initial thoughts on the TV+ system is that a team can still minmax, their TV will be a little higher, and inducements are meant to even matches more, rather than give the underdog some chance of a win.
My system would make successful minmaxing totally impossible. A successful team would be forced to get stronger, to match it's win ratio and FF. Therefore a team will climb until either beaten down, or the coach reaches the maximum of his potential with that team.
It wouldn't match by CR at all, however a successful coach would get harder and harder games until it balanced out (in theory anyway).
Of course I think the TV+ system is an improvement. I above anyone believe that TV is a total disaster. However I think it has a totally different aim to what I'd like to see. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2013 - 13:24 |
|
TV+ would prevent minmaxing too. The aim of minmaxing being to win, and wins resulting in a higher TV+ score, meaning they are no longer able to be matched against low or similar TV teams with a poor record, and a winning team would instead be at a disadvantage in either skills, players or inducements to an average or poor team.
Any change to the environment will change an individual's response to it, and how they think. In that sense they are the same.
Anyway, we agree that a change to matching would be an improvement. How we'd do it is a matter of opinion. I'm happy enough with that. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Custom Icon, Portrai...
Search
