91 coaches online • Server time: 20:55
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Wrestle Gutter Runne...goto Post snotling ball carrie...goto Post Missing encoding of ...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
maznaz



Joined: Jan 26, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 20:57 Reply with quote Back to top

Honestly I don't really mind how gamefinder works. 1, it's optional and people will ignore matches they don't like regardless, and 2, as soon as there is a scheduler working in B, I'll be playing there instead. I am only here to make sure people don't do something dumb which breaks B and stops it getting matches.
Nelphine



Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 21:13 Reply with quote Back to top

Yup, gamefinder does nothing for me for the same reason. I'm talking about a scheduler.

To those who point out that it shouldn't prevent matches I agree; I just want the basis of box to be game played, and not tv (but if no other opponents are around, then just as with tv matching, less and less favourable matchups - meaning a wider disparity of number of games played in this season - are allowed in order to ensure games happen; with certain restrictions being absolute, similar to tv matching not allowing rookie teams to play wide tv matches). Edit: I'm also aware that Christer has said he intends to stick with tv matching. I don't expect my opinion to change his mind.

Cherry picking box by making a perfect team that is at a very low tv is exactly what i want to avoid, in the same way that league avoids it - by simply saying 'you are part of this league, and at some point you can play virtually anyone in the league'.

Double edit: to be clear, i want it based on numbers of games played in the current season, with teams who are in their first season getting special rules only. After season 1, any team in game 1 (whether they are on season 2 or season 10) could still have the highest weight to play against each other.


Super ideally, I'd put in weights based on previous matchups, to try to replicate the league environment of not playing the same opponent too often, but that's not super relevant to the discussion.
Kinks



Joined: Feb 28, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 06, 2021 - 00:07 Reply with quote Back to top

The main concern I see being raised here is people worried about not finding a match. I presume it would still be possible to agree games outside of GF (i.e. Discord)?

Perhaps GF could just list the 5 best match ups (by whatever criteria). That would:

a) Reduce the ability to pick for those playing at peak times in popular brackets.
b) Enable people to play less ideal matches when they jsut want to play during quiet periods.

_________________
Better lucky than good
Zlefin



Joined: Apr 14, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 06, 2021 - 02:39 Reply with quote Back to top

I like the idea in general (I imagine some of the exact numbers/brackets could use tweaking). I'd like to see something of that sort implemented, if the user base is large enough to support it. But I don't play much these days so it's not a big deal to me.

I do much like the idea of better resembling the league play pattern.
maznaz



Joined: Jan 26, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 06, 2021 - 10:57 Reply with quote Back to top

gamefinder is a new concept to me since I returned to the site. Is it intended to be used to say "these are the games your team should play" or "these are some games your team could play" ?
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 06, 2021 - 11:37 Reply with quote Back to top

Could. Though some games are omitted from the list. e.g. big TV gaps vs young teams.

_________________
Image
[SL16] Championship! Tuesday 18th January. NO TV limit! - Challenger Swiss 1700TV
mekutata



Joined: May 03, 2015

Post   Posted: Dec 06, 2021 - 12:18 Reply with quote Back to top

Regarding the concern of not finding a match.
It's probably best to have the scheduler being able to be a bit more flexible than in the past.

So currently offering a game despite a huge TV gaps. Or -as suggested by OP- in case of a change of focus on matches broadening the allowed difference of played matches.

We had occasionally situations with only four, five coaches applying but no games being scheduled due the TV constraints. Maybe instead of setting up a new waiting period for the next schedule attempt, have the new scheduler still offer the most *optimal* games but allow coaches to opt out?
A pop up window with basic information but without revealing actual opponent and coaches can accept or not accept to play.
It even works fluffwise with the NAF collapse and teams self organizing their seasons. The agents simply failed to do a decent job on finding an adequate opponent.

It had been pointed out in past debates that it is planned to have C division use both, gamefinder and scheduler. So loosening the scheduler parameters in case of lacking teams would not really disrupt any kind of order.

_________________
Image
maznaz



Joined: Jan 26, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 06, 2021 - 12:49 Reply with quote Back to top

So again, for clarity, are we talking about the B scheduler when updated to BB2020, or an optional scheduler being added to C?

In the latter case, I can't see there being enough games for it to ever get matches. Also given the current structure of incentivising coaches to pick their games, why would they opt for using a blind scheduler when their direct opponents wouldn't be doing so?

How does an optional scheduler in C work in people's imagination?
Sp00keh



Joined: Dec 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Dec 06, 2021 - 12:56 Reply with quote Back to top

mekutata wrote:
four, five coaches applying but no games being scheduled

That's because of the implementation is based on Stable Roommate Problem
I've long thought that if it fails to make 2+ valid matchups, it should at least try to make 1 valid matchup

In other words, if there's 4 teams at 900k, 1690k, 1700k, 3000k
There's no way to match them all within +/- reasonable tv
So it fails and produces 0 matchups
Instead, why not pair 1690k with 1700k? and leave the others without a game

Anyway, scheduler tweaks aren't directly the point of this thread and I don't like the 15 min scheduler timer. I don't think it's good to have that in my life


I think something like Gamefinder, but blind, and it just gives you the first valid match, like the taxi example first-off-the-rank

It'd just need some limits around gamesplayed and/or TV and also avoiding repeated opponents
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 06, 2021 - 13:01 Reply with quote Back to top

In theory, with the Season Re-Draft enabled, very high TV teams should be less common than in old ruleset, that should reduce the chance of big TV gaps, but they could still be possible.
Sp00keh



Joined: Dec 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Dec 06, 2021 - 13:06 Reply with quote Back to top

To expand on what I mean about blind gamefinder

- Start: Lobby contains 0 coaches, 0 teams

1: CoachA joins with: Team1 at 0 games 1000k, Team2 at 5 games 1200k, Team3 at 10 games 1400k
- Lobby contains 1 coach, 3 teams

2: CoachB joins with: Team4 at 0 games 990k, Team5 at 3 games 1100k
- The best valid matchup is Team1 vs Team4 - they get paired against each other and start their game
- Lobby contains 0 coaches, 0 teams again

3: CoachC joins with Team6 at 0 games 980k
- Lobby contains 1 coach, 1 team

4: CoachD joins with Team7 at 30 games 1600k
- No valid matchup
- Lobby contains 2 coaches, 2 teams

5: CoachE joins with Team8 at 0 games 995k and Team9 at 32 games 1610k
- 2 valid matchups: Team6 vs Team8, or Team7 vs Team9, one of those will be a better so that starts
- Lobby then contains 1 coach, 1 team



So you'd activate your teams, and then if there's a valid matchup for you, you're just given that opponent and you start playing.
If there's no valid matchup, you'd have to sit and wait for someone to join.
Or could activate more teams, if there's other coaches also waiting

You don't get to see what team or coach you'll face, like blackbox
But the matching is immediate, like scheduler
Verminardo



Joined: Sep 27, 2006

Post   Posted: Dec 06, 2021 - 14:51 Reply with quote Back to top

The elefant in the room here is Morg isn't it.
ClayInfinity



Joined: Aug 15, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 06, 2021 - 21:15 Reply with quote Back to top

Sp00keh wrote:
To expand on what I mean about blind gamefinder

- Start: Lobby contains 0 coaches, 0 teams

1: CoachA joins with: Team1 at 0 games 1000k, Team2 at 5 games 1200k, Team3 at 10 games 1400k
- Lobby contains 1 coach, 3 teams

2: CoachB joins with: Team4 at 0 games 990k, Team5 at 3 games 1100k
- The best valid matchup is Team1 vs Team4 - they get paired against each other and start their game
- Lobby contains 0 coaches, 0 teams again

3: CoachC joins with Team6 at 0 games 980k
- Lobby contains 1 coach, 1 team

4: CoachD joins with Team7 at 30 games 1600k
- No valid matchup
- Lobby contains 2 coaches, 2 teams

5: CoachE joins with Team8 at 0 games 995k and Team9 at 32 games 1610k
- 2 valid matchups: Team6 vs Team8, or Team7 vs Team9, one of those will be a better so that starts
- Lobby then contains 1 coach, 1 team



So you'd activate your teams, and then if there's a valid matchup for you, you're just given that opponent and you start playing.
If there's no valid matchup, you'd have to sit and wait for someone to join.
Or could activate more teams, if there's other coaches also waiting

You don't get to see what team or coach you'll face, like blackbox
But the matching is immediate, like scheduler


I like this. I have said in many other threads that I am an advocate for Games Played as the basis of match ups.

I do concede this may make draws in the old Black Box scheduler harder to get due to lack of valid opponents.

I moved to Black Box because I was tired of the cherry picking and being picked but I found the 15min timer cumbersome. Being in Australia, the timezone isnt very friendly as well.

With the above proposal, you get matched randomly (yay!) against an opponent as soon as one comes available (yay again!) and it uses Games Played rather than TV (triple yay!)...

Well done!
maznaz



Joined: Jan 26, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 06, 2021 - 21:41 Reply with quote Back to top

I like the idea in principle but I think in practise it will kill B and coaches will just go back to picking in C. Christer has said over and over again that coaches complain bitterly about matches that are mismatched in TV (or the previous equivalents)
Garion26



Joined: Nov 28, 2021

Post   Posted: Dec 06, 2021 - 22:20 Reply with quote Back to top

New to FUMBBL here

But I've been following the discussion avidly as prior to FUMBBL I've played a lot on BB 2 which has a different matchmaker (and no implementation of redrafting or BB 2020 random skills.)

I think non TV matching is a non starter for Christer for reasons he has well documented.

Could you continue the current matching but increase the transparency of how many total games a team has played by including more data on games played easily visible along with TV during the C matchmaking phase? Folks who want to match on games played can choose to incorporate that information in their matchmaking decisions.


It may be just because I'm a newbie to FUMBBL but I hadn't considered the possibility prior to this discussion that a TV 1050 might be on game 17 when I'm on game 2. However I've been unpleasantly surprised to play that 4 skill up Gutter runner at TV 1050 or so ) which in retrospect probably explains things.
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