15 coaches online • Server time: 04:30
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Welcome Newcomers - ...goto Post ramchop takes on the...goto Post The finest Apoth mon...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
JanMattys



Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 12:09 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:
3) some coaches will not play vs other coaches for reasons not related to fairness of match-up/CR gain etc. but due to personal grudges;

So, an automatic scheduler is way better than relying on coaches' interaction to find games.


I won't comment on points 1 and 2, but "I want the freedom to be a dick and still find games" is a poor argument.

_________________
Image
Java



Joined: Jan 27, 2018

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 12:17 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:
2) Even assuming that a coach can perfectly evalue and assess matches, thus picking only the good ones for him, this process is time-consuming. As we well know most offers are not fair, so, either you accept to play a bad match-up or you waste hours waiting for a fair offer.

JanMattys wrote:
I strongly suspect that for all his ramblings about CR, MattDakka's real complaint against GF is that it is slow and doesn't provide games fast enough.


Image
JanMattys



Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 12:24 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:
a ranking system should check how much successful a coach is at winning a match-up he could not deliberately choose.


For the n-th time: that's your definition. That's not the only definition possibile, nor by default the best one.

As I already told you, I have seen people farming Legends in Ranked and only caring about giving them spps (and losing games because of it). I have seen people build the Most-Fouls Troll in Ranked (God I miss Paulhicks). I have seen people building weird teams for fun, like an all-random mutations Chaos, and losing because of it. I have seen people doing all kind of weird stuff OUTSIDE and INSIDE a game. Nothing about that is illegal in ranked. Everything about that impacts on the final CR of both those choaches AND their opponents.

Why do you think that the gamefinder method is the only thing that grants fairness is beyond me. There's like, ten thousand different things that make your CR be higher or lower that it "should" theoretically be. Just to name one, your skill choices, which the matching algorithm doesn't take into accounts.
The thing is, you want everybody to only play your way so that they play the same game as you, and then your CR matters because in an equal playing field you can brag you're the best. But that's your problem, not everybody's else.

So stop telling others what a ranking system should or shouldn't be.

_________________
Image
Christer



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 12:27
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:
1) many coaches don't know (or don't care due to several reasons) what a fair game is, this is why it's better to use an automatic system to arrange games, because your formula, Christer, is impartial and works well most of times (I didn't like the odd super TV gaps but that's it); so, if you are a newcomer and don't know that Amazons vs Dwarf is a bad match-up, you will accept it because you ignore the racial mismatch, not because the Dwarf coach is a "super expert of the game".
With the Box formula there is a factor making less likely racial mismatches, if I'm not wrong (a racial match-up bias).
I prefer to trust in your Box formula than relying on people's fairness, given the choice.


This does not invalidate CR for a system where you can pick opponents. A person who doesn't know what a fair game is is objectively not as good as someone who does, and will have a correlated (but not caused by) low CR.

MattDakka wrote:
[2) Even assuming that a coach can perfectly evalue and assess matches, thus picking only the good ones for him, this process is time-consuming. As we well know most offers are not fair, so, either you accept to play a bad match-up or you waste hours waiting for a fair offer.
Both things are negative because:
- if you accept a bad match-up (even if you know it) you could lose lot of CR/have your team wrecked;
- if you want to be super-selective you play 1 or 2 games per day;


Again, this does not invalidate the CR system for chosen games, and is a complaint that you can't find games you find acceptable within a certain period of time.

MattDakka wrote:
3) some coaches will not play vs other coaches for reasons not related to fairness of match-up/CR gain etc. but due to personal grudges;


This is again not an invalidation of CR in a chosen opponent format. But yes, there's an incentive to be social and friendly to others. Perhaps not a bad thing to encourage?


MattDakka wrote:
So, an automatic scheduler is way better than relying on coaches' interaction to find games.


This is a subjective opinion, and you are absolutely allowed to believe so. This doesn't make it universally true though.

MattDakka wrote:
And by the way, if CR of GF and Box are strongly correlated, it's not true for the win rate.
Assuming same skill and races, a coach playing with GF only will have a higher win rate than a coach playing Box only, I have noticed that by checking many accounts.
So, that means that playing with the scheduler removes some "picking noise" from the win rate and thus is a better system for rankings.


Win rate is absolutely flawed as a way to estimate skill, and the CR system absolutely does not use win rate as a factor.


MattDakka wrote:

Also you are shifting focus:

a ranking system should check how much successful a coach is at winning a match-up he could not deliberately choose.


I absolutely and categorically disagree. A ranking system should try to estimate how successful a coach is at some metric (winning in this case). The way matches are scheduled is not part of it.

MattDakka wrote:

When you say that a ranking system is a measure of being good at picking then that's not anymore a success of actual playing games, but it's the skill of picking games.
Although there is correlation between the 2 things they are not the same thing. The rankings should measure the success in the actual playing of a game, not in the picking of a game.

I could know, for example, that Amazon vs Dwarf is a bad match-up but I could not be able to play Amazons and Dwarfs.
Rankings should measure ONLY the win rate, not how good you are to pick a game in order to win it.
That's a meta factor which improves winning chances but it's not really coaching skill (in the meaning of being good at playing a BB game).


Rankings should absolutely not ONLY measure win rate. That's atrociously bad as a metric.

The thing here is that if you are cherry picking with a dwarf team, only playing vs amazons (to take your example), you will rise in CR at first, but once you hit a certain level (let's say 160-165-ish), you will plateau because the people you play against will be lower CR generally speaking. Thus, your CR will converge to reflect your actual win rate in the context of your chosen opponents. Just because you win 90% of your games doesn't mean that you're the best coach on the site, who could be playing objectively harder matchups against stronger coaches and still outperforming the expected win rate.
Lasgalen



Joined: Jun 30, 2018

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 12:34 Reply with quote Back to top

conversation is off topic since post nr 2.

I am asking myself if it has a pourpose or it's just a piling on game on some not loved members of the community + delusionals validations about which opinion gets more credit thanks to an imaginary number?

I don't know if admins can do something about it and bring the conversation back on his tracks.
I
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 12:45 Reply with quote Back to top

Thanks for the replies, Christer. I have understood that on this site cherrypicking is officially considered coach's skill.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 13:17 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:
Thanks for the replies, Christer. I have understood that on this site cherrypicking is officially considered coach's skill.


Of course it is. How did you think boxing worked? Twisted Evil

_________________
Image
[SL]2020 Rookie Rumble - New teams ONLY - Always recruiting!
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 15:50 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:
The other thread derailed. Anyway, I have understood that there is no interest in real competitive games, no need to discuss further.


There is. But we have leagues and tournaments for that.
It is not the world's fault if you are unable to play.

It seems to me, that because you cannot play, you want to turn open divisions into leagues/tournaments.
You have been given the Black Box Trophy. That is the best that you are going to get.
Unless you can rearrange your life so that you can schedule a game or few.

_________________
Image
[SL]2020 Rookie Rumble - New teams ONLY - Always recruiting!
stej



Joined: Jan 05, 2009

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 16:12 Reply with quote Back to top

Define competative I guess.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 16:56 Reply with quote Back to top

Matt's last 20 Box games.

Three Legends, three super stars. 14 others. "Competitive"? For sure, picking makes getting a game take longer. Why would you when you can get them picked for you?


Emerging Star
Star
Star
Star
Legend
Legend
Star
Star
Emerging Star
Star
Star
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Legend
Super Star
Emerging Star
Super Star
Super Star
Star
Emerging Star

_________________
Image
[SL]2020 Rookie Rumble - New teams ONLY - Always recruiting!
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 17:32 Reply with quote Back to top

There are many kinds of picking. There are also many, many ways to improve your chances of getting a game. We're not all obsessed with our CR or win-rate. I've found that I almost never have to wait long to get a good match if I'm playing all-lino humans, and I can afford easily to discard the obviously unfair matchup. (The Amateurs are a little different because they pack a bunch of legends, but that attracts more coaches than it drives away.) Some use stunty teams instead of gimmick teams to do the same thing. We pay for it in CR, but we get good games, and isn't that why we're here?

_________________
Focus not on things you can't control, like bad dice, but instead on things under your power, like how far you flip the table.
HaruHaru



Joined: Sep 05, 2019

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 19:50 Reply with quote Back to top

https://imgur.com/a/aEVU7AS

Admittedly, Matt was nicer to the end, but I don't get the need to seemingly gloat over your superior skill. Maybe that's not the intention here Matt, but that is what you are conveying.
stej



Joined: Jan 05, 2009

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 21:27 Reply with quote Back to top

Can we all play goblins in the box to tank our CR, then play some tier 1 teams va Matt in ranked?
JanMattys



Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Sep 28, 2021 - 21:56 Reply with quote Back to top

I’m planning on playing against Matt in competitive and concede turn 1, just so that everytime he looks at his CR, he knows that some of that wasn’t deserved. It’ll be a small but permanent flaw in his CR that he can’t deny or fix.
It probably won’t, but I hope it’ll irk him to no end 😂

_________________
Image
Wozzaa



Joined: Apr 23, 2016

Post   Posted: Sep 29, 2021 - 01:17 Reply with quote Back to top

Maybe the best coaches win tournaments?

_________________
Image
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic