| Poll |
| How will you cast your vote for your favorite Wardancer? |
| Via the boot! |
|
28% |
[ 47 ] |
| I'll toss a rock. |
|
12% |
[ 21 ] |
| With a mighty blow. |
|
11% |
[ 18 ] |
| Doesn't anyone pile on anymore? |
|
14% |
[ 24 ] |
| Just claw your way to victory! |
|
8% |
[ 14 ] |
| How about a PIE to the face??? |
|
23% |
[ 39 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 163 |
|
nin
Joined: May 27, 2005
|
 Posted:
Jan 18, 2008 - 22:41 |
 
|
| SillySod wrote: | TS is excellent for determining how "hard" a game will be. It has a huge advantage over CR in that the benchmark can bet set and needs no changing according to team or coach.
I'm definately in favour of making TS differences count towards points. Something like: add the TS difference divided by 4 to the points total for a game would seem like its about right. Otherwise a simple +5 points for playing against a stronger team could work.
For those who don't know (i.e. nearly everyone) I started a team for this season but didn't apply to the group before playing any games so I couldn't join. I figured that it dosent really matter since I can do all the scoring manually and if I play in spirit it is pretty much the same as being a member of the group. Anyway...
I was motivated by seeing a particular ELF coach do the Synnful Sprint but with some TS differences that I considered distasteful, not serious but not challenging looking. I had a brief argument with Synn about whether it was good or not with no real conclusion other than that I should try out the sprint and ELF for myself (my conclusion, he didn't say that).
Dead But Don't Know It have been fighting the Synnful Sprint and what I've now discovered is the Mad Trial (I assume that this means no games played vs a lower TS, not just no games reported vs a lower TS) for what would seem to be a Silly Combination. So, the results:
Cat A = 63 *2
vs Chaos Dwarfs = 35 points (concession)
vs Khemri = 28
Cat B = 63
vs Ogre =35
vs Chaos =28
Cat C = 56
vs Human = 21
vs Nurgle = 35
Cat D = 0
no elves yet, only 14 games of sprint played
Cat E = 58
vs Lizard = 37
vs Necro = 21
Total =303
Is that good? |
I was waitimg for pizzamogul's discusion thread, but as this one keeps on, more oppinions:
I think that +1 ELF points for +4 TS is too few, because a 5-0 cherry gives +5 and another +5 and +10 points in touchs while 20 TS gives +5 and a tough match (probably not 5-0 )
I know that high score matches may be a matter of skill or luck, but it's posible to cherripick and get to the top, so I think that the bonus for hard matches should encourage playing them. I'd like the winner of the ELF season to have some tough matches counting for the score.
May be the bonus shouldn't be as high as to completly overcome the bonus for 5+ touchs or 0 touchs against, but enougth to compete.
(5-0 means 40 points and then you add cas, and double it for cath. A)
As an example, 303 points is #22 this season, and 268 points below the first.
It could be 364 with all the games played. May be a bit higher with some more games, lets say 370. If you add 120 for 10 matches with 40 TS for your opponent it's 490... still 2nd 
...and I keep thinking that a bonus for playing high CR coaches would be fair, cherripickers or not, they use to win more than they lose. And beating cherripickers can as well give a bonus, it's not bad for the comunity or the group.  |
|
|
Tathar
Joined: Sep 29, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2008 - 09:23 |
|
As a (albeit to date silent) protagonist in this debate, I thought it might be time to throw my 2 cents in. I'll just lay it out so here's a list of suggestions based on what I've seen in this thread already:
1) Min opponent CR >= 155 for scoring games.
2) Min TS difference of opponent = -20
3) TS bonus/penalty = 1 point / 4 TS (rounded down)
4) CR bonus = 1 point / 5 opponent CR above 155 (rounded down)
5) Scrap the 5-point bonus for 5 TDs or more.
6) Keep the bonus for 0 TDs against but perhaps modify the bonus i.e. 3 points.
7) Include handicaps into the TS equation at some arbitrary figure i.e. 5 as in the ranking formula (not perfect but I don't see another practical option).
Reasoning:
1) A CR of 155 is above the starting 150, so it does show some positive coaching ability. This could be set higher but I think it would restrict the availability of games.
2) As mentioned before a -20 difference should be sufficient to fit the less standard TS teams in, while providing some sort of minimum benchmark.
3) As per SillySod.
4) Lower bonus than other suggestions based on the TS>CR argument. Altering this should also mean changing no.3.
5) You already get more points for scoring more TDs via TD difference.
6) I like the 0 TD bonus as it has a natural counter balance in that you need to score more TD to get more points, so this opens up more key strategic decision making. Elf stalling is also a recognised and tricky tactic, as you open the potential that they can stop you scoring or inflict crippling damage that can help them beat you in the second half.
7) Ideally you might want to include the effects of handicaps, i.e. to reduce the TS precisely for "It wasn't me!" but I don't see how that is practical so I guess this is the best alternative.
So where does it leave us:
A) 5-0 vs 155 CR coach with -20 TS = 28 points
B) 1-0 vs 165 CR coach with +8 TS = 29 points
C) 2-1 vs 175 CR coach with +12 TS = 29 points
These results are about equivalent. Is that reasonable?
If any of you are interested, my intention with Synnful Sprinting Spirits was simply to compete in E.L.F. whilst ensuring the team survived the sprint, then mounting a challenge the next season. Then I realised that titles and records were achievable if I was willing to go where some of you clearly weren't.
I'm happy that my maiden season has brought us to this impasse, as it will lead to an overhaul of the scoring system that will allow us to compete for the prizes in a more even manner.
So I look forward to competing with you next season with the Hardcore Synners:
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=420954
(Yes, the team was created before MadTias's first post on Jan 11th, bio and all  ) |
|
|
Shinan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2008 - 09:49 |
|
I'm not really for or against any changes since I just play the ELF for ELFing. But I don't like the no-score for games against coaches with less than 155 CR. I think that one of the primary things for an ELF team is not to decline challenges but when you can't any points from a challenge at all there's just more reason to. I have nothing against extra points against high CR coaches but I don't like the idea of excluding games against "worse" coaches just because they won't give any points. That's Standard High Elven Elitist Thinking (SHEET) not ELFing.
Other than that the changes won't change any of my enjoyment of ELF. The CR-limit would. |
_________________
"Älä löi, en ole hurrit." |
|
Tathar
Joined: Sep 29, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2008 - 10:09 |
|
The problem with not having a floor value for CR for ELF scoring is that takes away a lot of the value of the above alterations. Not doing something about the low CR games is basically like patching up the holes in the walls whilst leaving the door open. How can we distinguish E.L.F. member challenges from opponent challenges?
The alternative would be to allow these games to score but have punitive penalties, i.e. -5 points for CR games under threshold (stacking with the CR bonus/penalty)
In terms of SHEET thinking, yes it is. In fact the whole point of this discussion is essentially SHEET thinking. But it's not elitism in choosing new members, any coach of any CR can compete. It's elitism in choosing the award winners as we limit the "quality" of their opponents, which to me seems reasonable. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2008 - 10:30 |
|
A few thoughts and reflections on some of the ideas etc...
I'm not keen on the idea of basing scoring or "what counts" on CR. This is because there is no appropriate system that can handle ALL the coaches appropriately (that I've seen). Either:
- Theres a cutoff CR, not crazy about this since a) it is tough on "lesser abled" coaches but not on "tougher" ones and b) its not something that I check at the moment, I'm lazy and dont want to have to change that
- You get extra points for playing against tougher coaches, this is very hard on coaches with a high CR already, not all good coaches have high CR either.
- A sort of mix, if CR was taken into account I'd run it on the basis of not being allowed to play scoring games vs a coach of more than 20CR below you. Notice that this figure is pretty liberal but does limit the CR 170+ coaches somewhat from silly picks.
People have mentioned my proposed TS points modifier a few times so I'll make a few comments:
- Though a cherrypick of 40TS can yield great results from normal points, it would be subject to a -10 modifier, this seems enough to seriously dent the figure
- Likewise playing 40TS down is going to be very tricky but can reward (be careful not to award too many points for this otherwise you will find these games being high scoring simply because they took a silly challenge rather than because they won)
- Simple rounding was my first thought but rounding down works too, it depends how you want to tone it.
nin, I wasnt trying to provide an example of a winning score (first time and only 14 games rather than 67ish), just wanted to a) see how that compared and b) show that you can get a respectable score that way. Also note that I used Darkies which are probably the easiest team.
I don't like the +5 points for scoring 5+ TDs. If you are doing that then it is very likely a high scoring game already and seems a little arbitrary. I do like the shutout victory points bonus though.
PS nin, I havent forgotten the game offer, I just keep forgetting to get round to it or get distracted (like now). |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
nin
Joined: May 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2008 - 21:24 |
|
SillySod: the bonus for high CR in my post is not for higher than yours, but just for high CR
Playing against a coach with CR160+ gives a bonus no matter what your CR is, because such an opponent uses to win more than he loses.
Playing against a coach with CR175+ may give a bit bigger bonus as either he's good or he's a good cherripicker. Either case, it's a tough match.
More thougths soon.
ps: I have exams too, but the game offer is there for the moment we both have time. |
|
|
eyeslikethunder
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 19, 2008 - 22:58 |
|
i think floor value hurts low CR coaches a lot more than punative system as a lot of their wins will come from games against other low CR coaches so i would be favour of a punative system |
_________________
Proud Member of E.L.F.
There was this disturbance in the water, then suddenly this giant testicle came out and grabbed me |
|
Gebannus
Joined: Apr 14, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2008 - 11:21 |
|
I'm quite keen to join ELF next season and to give it my best. But, as a <155 CR coach myself, I won't if there's an arbitrary minimum CR for reported matches. |
_________________
. |
|
eyeslikethunder
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2008 - 15:17 |
|
I have few friends who are new to fumbbl and are considering joining or have joined who have voiced similar concerns |
_________________
Proud Member of E.L.F.
There was this disturbance in the water, then suddenly this giant testicle came out and grabbed me |
|
clarkin
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2008 - 18:08 |
|
I definitely think CR should be ignored for ELF. TS however should not be |
|
|
clarkin
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2008 - 22:37 |
|
OK I've worked out how to compile etc from source and was able to reproduce the points totals for the last season- what would you like me to tweak points-wise? |
|
|
Kryten
Joined: Sep 02, 2003
|
If there is a CR "floor", then it ought to be the lower of the arbitrary floor value and the ELF coach's own CR. There's no need for lesser coaches to "play up" just to score points. The idea is to play fair games against challenging races. |
|
|
Arcon
Joined: Mar 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2008 - 13:07 |
|
Hm, I have said my oppinion earlier, but I feel I have to comment on CR once more. I do not like a CR cap, and I do not like to punish high CR coaches only for being good coaches. If they are better, let them win. ELF is not there to give low CR and high CR coaches the same chances.
Thus I suggested a modification of ELF points dependent on the CR of the opposing coach only.
And I know that there are cherry pickers, that some coaches will have a high CR due to some recently won tourney games and that we have some coaches that are much better than their CR tells. Still, CR is the score fumbbl uses for competitiveness in Ranked. And this is where most of ELFing takes place. So, implementing CR is just a means of showing the competitiveness according to fumbbl. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2008 - 13:53 |
|
| Arcon wrote: | Hm, I have said my oppinion earlier, but I feel I have to comment on CR once more. I do not like a CR cap, and I do not like to punish high CR coaches only for being good coaches. If they are better, let them win. ELF is not there to give low CR and high CR coaches the same chances.
Thus I suggested a modification of ELF points dependent on the CR of the opposing coach only.
And I know that there are cherry pickers, that some coaches will have a high CR due to some recently won tourney games and that we have some coaches that are much better than their CR tells. Still, CR is the score fumbbl uses for competitiveness in Ranked. And this is where most of ELFing takes place. So, implementing CR is just a means of showing the competitiveness according to fumbbl. |
This sounds fine in theory until you look at it from a lower CR coaches perspective. Rating their wins based on opponents CR will just divide the gap between the "better" and "worse" coaches further. Sure, it will help weed out cherry picking plenty and its a pretty good way of measuring different coaches against each other but it only really benefits high CR coaches anyway.
One of the reasons (as I see it) to include some kind of CR or TS rule is to help recognise the achievements of "lesser" coaches.
Without penalising high CR coaches (i.e. making the difference between CRs count for points) the only way I can see to do this is to either ignore CR (granted, it won't help, but it won't damage either) or to have a very loose cap, based on your CR. The loose cap should hinder high CR coaches a little, but only in that they won't be able to play some of the very obvious cherrypicks (much like the current 40TS restriction works). |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Arcon
Joined: Mar 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2008 - 14:02 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | One of the reasons (as I see it) to include some kind of CR or TS rule is to help recognise the achievements of "lesser" coaches. |
No, my intention is only and simply to see games reported (and thus counted for ELF) that are played vs fairer matchups.
And I stick to my earlier post that a Dwarf team (for example) is more dangerous the higher the CR of the coach is (with the exceptions I gave earlier). I am sick to see the 5:0 wins vs 140 CR coaches. I'd love to see a tie vs CR 170 coach though. So, I wish these games give the same amount of point. (EDIT: And these games are played. By some ELF teams more than by others. But for all teams they are harder to win, and until now will not be the ones to be reported. But they shoul because these games reflect the true spirit of ELF)
I never intended to help weaker CR coaches. This attempt is utterly wrong in my oppinion. They don't get stars for free in official tourney neither, to help them out (just another example). If you are a better coach you simple have a better chance to score more points in ELF, and so it shall stay. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Cindy fumbling after...
Search
