stej
Joined: Jan 05, 2009
|
 Posted:
Sep 04, 2020 - 23:05 |
 
|
But enjoyment differs from coach to coach. Some enjoy winning, some enjoy killing, some enjoy world building. Sometimes these enjoyment types clash and make the game un fun |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 02:13 |
|
| Uber wrote: | There is such an absurd fear of cherry picking. It's just ridiculous, especially coming from the so-called "hardcore" crowd too.
I think it's only a very small percentage of people who actively try to abuse the system, the rest are just playing teams in their TR range who happen to be looking for a game at the same time, much like blackbox. |
Check the CR and Winning % differentials between a coach in Box and Ranked and take yourself on a journey of 'what it means'  |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 07:33 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Uber wrote: | There is such an absurd fear of cherry picking. It's just ridiculous, especially coming from the so-called "hardcore" crowd too.
I think it's only a very small percentage of people who actively try to abuse the system, the rest are just playing teams in their TR range who happen to be looking for a game at the same time, much like blackbox. |
Check the CR and Winning % differentials between a coach in Box and Ranked and take yourself on a journey of 'what it means' |
My record is much better in black box. What does that mean? |
_________________
 |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 07:59 |
|
It's up to you, that's the fun of assessing it.  How you use the disparity between the two is totally everyone's to litigate and determine for themselves...which they already might do unwittingly.
I play Box way more so my overall CR will fluctuate depending on how much Nuffle is head over heels with me in the moment. Part of my personal dilemma is that if I had a way higher CR in Ranked, I would be tempted to assign some of that to the selection of opponents along team v team and coach v coach. Regardless if I actually did or not. I would search for a causality that might not even exist and drive myself loopy with it.
I also have a hard time saying 'no' to folks, for better or worse.
This is also why I'm kinda worried about skill selection in BB2020...I'm gonna have to choose to have studs? Awww man, I don't wanna say 'no' to +ST or +MA...it's there for the taking! |
|
|
dolphinandrew
Joined: May 09, 2017
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 08:21 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | Uber wrote: | There is such an absurd fear of cherry picking. It's just ridiculous, especially coming from the so-called "hardcore" crowd too.
I think it's only a very small percentage of people who actively try to abuse the system, the rest are just playing teams in their TR range who happen to be looking for a game at the same time, much like blackbox. |
Check the CR and Winning % differentials between a coach in Box and Ranked and take yourself on a journey of 'what it means' |
My record is much better in black box. What does that mean? |
Being in a non-picking environment at some point becomes better for a player as they improve (or as they look to others as if they are improving at least). At the point people are generally picking against you, Box is going to become the better place to get easy wins. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 08:41 |
|
Possibly. It's an interesting hypothesis.
By that rationale it would mean ranked is actually the harder more competative. Not that I necessarily agree with that. |
_________________
|
|
dolphinandrew
Joined: May 09, 2017
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 09:24 |
|
| Garion wrote: | Possibly. It's an interesting hypothesis.
By that rationale it would mean ranked is actually the harder more competative. Not that I necessarily agree with that. |
Just as a general comment, for a fixed, broad enough player base no game matching system can be harder for every player. If the matches for player A are on average harder in, say, Box, they must be proportionally easier for some other players (the 'easiness' might be spread over several players).
It depends on how you play. Assume people can roughly gauge how good a opponent is in a potential match up.
If a player is not very good, and doesn't do any picking at all, ranked might be slightly harder, as people gaming the system will be picking for the bad player for a chance at easy wins. Random is better than your opponent selecting because your opponents are on average better than you.
If a player is not very good and is picky, ranked will be much easier. The player filters out the hard matches.
For a good player who picks, in ranked this player can ignore the hard matches, and select the 'fresh meat'. Ranked will be easier, but games might be hard to find as they will get picked against.
For a good player who doesn't pick much, they are still going to be picked against in ranked, ruling out some number of easy matches. But in box, the selection is (somewhat) random. So those easy matches are going to be possible again. Random is better for you than opponents choosing, because, on average, your opponents are worse than you.
All this is slightly oversimplifying of course. I'm assuming box and ranked both have a player base that is roughly as good as each other. Whether people pick isn't really a binary, most people I think are a little picky, but not super picky. And all this also depends on what teams you play.
For instance, is a good player playing a TV-efficient super-killy chaos team going to have a harder time in box or ranked? In ranked, that team is just not going to find games, and the games that they do get will probably be more likely to be on the extremes. Either new people who don't know what they are doing (who will be rarer at higher TV), or other super-killy chaos teams. In box, you are going to get a more random selection of opponents, which is probably better on average for wins. Of course, this again is oversimplifying a little. Box isn't completely random, as people select their teams and TV matching doesn't lead to a random selection of teams (some teams and coach abilities are more likely at certain TV levels).
I only started box relatively recently. While there have certainly been some hard matches, there have also been some games that were fairly obviously going to be cake walks based on the teams/players. The latter just aren't going to happen as often in ranked. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 10:59 |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 12:52 |
|
| Garion wrote: |
My record is much better in black box. What does that mean? |
It could mean that you don't pick in Ranked, and that you are comparing two different sized samples:
1093 Ranked games to 701 Box games.
392 games difference will affect the win rate in Box (the more games played, the more regression to the average win rate).
You should play 1093 Box games before doing the comparison.
Also, you are just one coach and you could not be a picker (I don't think you are btw) but if you check a good sample of coaches playing a fairly even number of Ranked and Box games, you will see that the % in Ranked is almost always higher than in Box.
Also, not just picking helps to win more, even simply turning down bad offers helps as well. |
|
|
Cyrus-Havoc
Joined: Sep 15, 2006
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 13:11 |
|
Some bloke said 'A Rose by any other name just gets in the way on the pitch'
Seriously I don't care what you call the division but I think you should exclude divisional names that have be used before to avoid confusion. So no to Ranked, Unranked, & Blackbox. I’d leave League as League. |
_________________
Not Undead but perhaps the oldest living coach! |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 14:08 |
|
|
Cloggy
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 14:23 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: |
Also, you are just one coach and you could not be a picker (I don't think you are btw) but if you check a good sample of coaches playing a fairly even number of Ranked and Box games, you will see that the % in Ranked is almost always higher than in Box. |
I have to disagree with you. Many coaches who play both divisions have their sub-optimal teams in [R] and play absolute munchkin builds in [B]. For instance, I refuse to take claws on my ancient Ranked Cdorfs, but their cousins in Box go all out.
Your ever present theories about "pickers" are wrong as always as well. I've stumbled into quite a few matchups in B that would have been ashamed to offer in Ranked and very few I would never have accepted. In general (in my judgement) winning games in Box is slightly easier than winning games in RankedI have to agree with Garion.
It seems to me like you're projecting how you think you might behave yourself on the general population of the site and that kind of thought process usually gives poor results. |
_________________
Proud owner of three completed Ranked grids, sadly lacking in having a life. |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 15:06 |
|
| Cloggy wrote: |
I have to disagree with you. Many coaches who play both divisions have their sub-optimal teams in [R] and play absolute munchkin builds in [B]. For instance, I refuse to take claws on my ancient Ranked Cdorfs, but their cousins in Box go all out.
|
So, you are saying that in Ranked you go easy, while in Box you play more competitively with a better roster.
Point proven, Box is more competitive because you don't have to go easy with team builds. 
And even if you don't go easy in Box, your win rate there is lower. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 16:34 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | Garion wrote: |
My record is much better in black box. What does that mean? |
It could mean that you don't pick in Ranked, and that you are comparing two different sized samples:
1093 Ranked games to 701 Box games.
392 games difference will affect the win rate in Box (the more games played, the more regression to the average win rate). |
That's 100% not the correct explanation. there was a time I had played more in box than ranked and my win record in blackbox was much better then as well. I know this to be true because I made the same point then.
Personally I don't think either division is played at a high standard. I also don't think either 1 is more competative than the other.
That said I do agree with you that game finder serves no function in this edition. However it is needed if there is not a working blacklist function as I explained a few pages back.
There are only 2 options as i see it - have no blacklist and keep gamefinder, or if you just use a matchmaker then you must include a blacklist. Because no one should be forced to play against someone they've had problems with in the past. And it's unfair if the person that is excluded is the innocent party. Excluded because the guilty party continues to play in that division and they're unavoidable.
Before anyone says this can be exploited, please read the blacklist proposal a few pages back. As it can't be exploited if it functions in the way described. |
_________________
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2020 - 17:13 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | If +ST is gonna cost you 80k you're not gonna want to take it every time. |
Yeah, it's going to be a bit weird. But maybe taking +ST being more or less a no-brainer up until now was a sign that it has been underpriced for a long time.
I'm also a fan of player strength being intrinsic to the rosters and star players, so if we aint having player legacies in the upcoming rules anyway, I'm leaning towards this 80k evaluation being ok. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blackbox Teams
Search
