DonTomaso
Joined: Feb 20, 2005
|
 Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 11:47 |
 
|
Wow, thats a lot of greek there...
Distance = Squirt ( Pee * Pee)
Anyways, grats to everyone who understands it all, and can contribute to making it work properly... |
_________________
====================================
Be careful, my common sense is tingling! |
|
Squaq
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 12:00 |
|
| Christer wrote: | If the two teams are of the same race, apply a factor:
distance = distance * 0.97
|
Is mirror matches really that dangerous. Does it has to be taken care of in the formular?
A chaos team specialised in ballhandling will most likely never play bashing chaos teams because of this.
No need to spare dwarfs meeting other dwarfs... They need to taste there own medicine - slow and painfully. |
|
|
Unstoffe
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 12:01 |
|
Very interesting...
So to determine the suitability, we have 3 major factors :
1) TS of the team
2) bashiness of the coach, in terms of their BR vs their BBR
3) skill of the coach, in terms of the magnitude of their BR and BBR combined
(1) is surely the most important. To be honest, I think I'd be happy with a division in which it was the only criteria.
(2) is the interesting bit. I do like the way this will mean exclusively bashy coaches will end up playing mainly each other  It's to be hoped though that this will encourage coaches to play a spread of races, and certainly any coach who does so should end up playing a variety of teams. On the minus side, I can see a potential for a clique of elf-bowlers to evolve due to this.
(3) is the problem. I really don't like the idea that the only way I'll get to play one of the better coaches is with a TS handicap - although I suppose another way would be to play better and increase my BR/BBR magnitude
So... a few thoughts :
The formula as described doesn't allow for 2 & 3 to be weighed separately, I'd suggest tweaking further so that they can be. For instance, given your plot of BR v BBR, you could place an abritary zero point (maybe at the average of all coaches positions). BR and BBR would then be the polar coords of the coach's position, giving you two separate values to weight appropriately.
As for the weighting - well I guess it depends on what we're trying to do.
If it's just to try to prevent new coaches getting trashed, well make the 'skill factor' only apply when one of the coaches is new to [B], with its weighting dropping to nothing as their games played increase.
If you want to give weaker coaches a bit of a leg up then OK. I really wouldn't want it to aim at giving the weaker coach an equal chance though. In particular, once a good coach has built an experienced team that could be expected to play in a tourney at some point, I'd say that matches for that team should generally be even TS.
Well... hope the feedback is useful. On a minor point, is that a typo, am I confused, or does the system really encourage same race matchups, and also repeated matches between the same coaches? |
_________________
British or thereabouts? Check out the White Isle League |
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 12:02 |
|
| MSpanke wrote: | | How does this work with extreme abuse? Lets say a coach with a 0% winning record on a team built to destroy. Norse with multiple DPs for example? Anyone game to test this out? |
Hey! My norse hasnt lost all their games 
Well, atm I'm just very, very happy that we have the B div. Made me start playing again |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 12:28 |
|
| Christer (way back in August) wrote: | | - Ideally, the scheduler will set up matches that give every coach a 50% theoretical chance to win. |
@Christer
I think that this statement is still bugging some people.
Better match ups is a good goal but people don't want to be punished too much for being good. They also want the chance to take down a top coach with out being given too much of a head start.
So what is the official policy?
Is "50% theoretical chance to win" a design goal?
(For us non boffins who can't figure it out from the formula ) |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
SeraphimRed
Joined: Feb 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 12:40 |
|
I see nothing wrong with a 50% chance of winning. If I was a new coach I wouldn't want to be handed loss after loss by playing very good coaches with equal strengthed teams. When I play other games online, where the quality of sprites are the same, I hope to be pitted against coaches equally pathetic as me.
I can also see why top coaches don't want to be given out weighed games.
For me, the ideal system would try to match up equal teams (Via Christers formula or similar) within a Coaching Band rather than a straight 50/50. Ergo, as a coach improves he plays better coaches, but the TS balance is always the same. And I guess the proficiency of the bashers should be applied to their BR, or at least the two combined in some manner. |
_________________
Enhance YOUR FUMBBL
 |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 12:45 |
|
| SeraphimRed wrote: | | I see nothing wrong with a 50% chance of winning. If I was a new coach I wouldn't want to be handed loss after loss by playing very good coaches with equal strengthed teams. When I play other games online, where the quality of sprites are the same, I hope to be pitted against coaches equally pathetic as me. |
That's what R is for. You get a Coach Rating telling you who's at the same level as you as who's not.
If you accept to enter a random-pairing system... why would you want the formula to give you softer matches??? Where's the "random", then?
I too would like to hear the official stance about the true goal of DivB. If anything, because if it's stated clearly that the goal is to create fair games (considering the coaches) I'll stop writing I'm against it, saving you all a whole lot of time |
_________________
 |
|
SeraphimRed
Joined: Feb 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 12:51 |
|
Not sure how you construe what I wrote to be "softer matches".
It's not softer matches, it's balanced matches where coaches of reasonably the same ability play one another with reasonably similar rated teams. This avoids uber coach playing nOOb coach without the need for way out outbalancing TS etc...
I'd be happy playing even matches against Coaches as good/bad as me.
I wouldn't be happy playing TR150 zons v tr200 dorfs against a nOOb.
Nothing like R, where you are free to pick your games.
This, at least, is how I'd like the system to work - but it's easy for me to say. |
_________________
Enhance YOUR FUMBBL
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:03 |
|
Hmm, perhaps the absolute value of the BR difference could be taken into account when calculating the distance between teams, rather than it being able to subtract from the distance. That way the box would generally avoid scheduling two coaches if they were of differing skill (or rather, different BRs).
Obviously the rest of the system would need plenty of tweaking if this change were to be made, otherwise it might start refusing too many games. |
_________________
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." |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:04 |
|
If you're a bad coach (allow me please to use broad categories) then you get easier matchups in B.
I thought it was easy to understand, but maybe I was wrong.
anyway, the point is:
Balanced match = even teams
Balanced game = even "teams+coaches" packages.
It seems that Christer prefers Balanced games for DivB. My point is that DivB should be about Balanced matches instead.
Just that.
Also, I'm implying that if you want balanced games (I've got no problem with that, it's understandable) you should go play Ranked, where there's a well known indicator (CR) which helps you in pairing yourself with balanced "teams + coaches" packages. |
_________________
|
|
TheCetusProject
Joined: May 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:07 |
|
I am too ill to work out what this all means right now... can someone tell me if my understanding is right: I am a wimpy coach who never causes injuries, if there are two fair matches against teams coached by equal BR coaches, but one is much bashier, the less bashy one is a better match for me? |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:08 |
|
Jan... how about balancing the matches and the coaches seperately? So on the whole the TS will be the same (so its a fair match) but the worse coaches tend to face the other poor coaches, and the good coaches tend to play amongst each other (with a little overlap). Wouldnt that be reasonable and pretty much ideal for both sides? |
_________________
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:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:09 |
|
I couldn't play yesterday, so the tweaks may have had an effect there but I have 2 teams, Skaven and Ogres, and 10 matches, 9 with Skaven 1 with Ogres.
Looks like the inbalance of Ogres TR/TS + my low BBR (due to Skaven play) + my good BR (8/2/0) + the racial factors (Ogres are not very good) make the pairing of the Ogres a bit difficult. |
|
|
SeraphimRed
Joined: Feb 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:10 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | If you're a bad coach (allow me please to use broad categories) then you get easier matchups in B.
I thought it was easy to understand, but maybe I was wrong.
anyway, the point is:
Balanced match = even teams
Balanced game = even "teams+coaches" packages.
It seems that Christer prefers Balanced games for DivB. My point is that DivB should be about Balanced matches instead.
Just that.
Also, I'm implying that if you want balanced games (I've got no problem with that, it's understandable) you should go play Ranked, where there's a well known indicator (CR) which helps you in pairing yourself with balanced "teams + coaches" packages. |
O....K...
A balanced match/game/Jan-ism is always a combination of Coaching ability and Team Strength (Racial factor etc), surely.
What's wrong with coaches of equal ability playing one another with reasonably equal odds of success. : /
And yes... in R, everyone strives to get balanced games and CR is very accurate. Remind me why we have [B] again?  |
_________________
Enhance YOUR FUMBBL
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 13:18 |
|
| TheCetusProject wrote: | | I am too ill to work out what this all means right now... can someone tell me if my understanding is right: I am a wimpy coach who never causes injuries, if there are two fair matches against teams coached by equal BR coaches, but one is much bashier, the less bashy one is a better match for me? |
Nope, if you cause less casualties, you just get a TS advantage. The system is encouraging you to win by just 1 TD without causing casualties. I don`t know, if BBR is based on the cas-diff or on the cas-total, but either way, win as closely as possible (preferably 1-0) without causing damage and you should get more favorable matches in terms of TS. At least more favorable than teams that win just as often but either score more TDs OR cause more casualties. Though high scoring is worse than high collateral damage.
As much as I agree with the playstyle, I`m not sure if conditioning players that way is the right thing.
Oh.. and I`m with DukeTyrion... back to [R] that is. |
Last edited by CircularLogic on %b %17, %2008 - %13:%Nov; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
| |
Vamps win another ma...
Search
