61 coaches online • Server time: 20:27
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post Secret League Americ...goto Post DOTP Season 4
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
What direction should the E.L.F. take?
Go back to the way it used to be.
19%
 19%  [ 13 ]
Stay the course. Everything is just fine!
19%
 19%  [ 13 ]
Badges, you say... are they shiny?
28%
 28%  [ 19 ]
Will you listen to me for a change!!!
7%
 7%  [ 5 ]
The ELF is dead man. Just let it go already.
24%
 24%  [ 16 ]
Total Votes : 66


CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Feb 20, 2009 - 14:50 Reply with quote Back to top

Finding matches with high CR is always hard - it`s usually easier to get those matches when you have lower TS and are offering elves..

Honestly, if ELF turns into a cherrypicking contest, I`ll be out.
Mr_Foulscumm



Joined: Mar 05, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 20, 2009 - 15:39 Reply with quote Back to top

Teams like this prospered in the old system. Please don't go back to that.

The problem for me was getting a game offer that was one TS below me and not getting the baseline score even if the coach was way over CR155. Or the reverse, a CR154ish coach with a TS way above my own team. This always seemed a bit odd to me. If we could sort this problem area out then I think E.L.F will be in great shape as I still feel the baseline made E.L.F better over all.

_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Feb 20, 2009 - 15:50 Reply with quote Back to top

How about splitting the baseline in two parts?
+5 points for CR 155+
+5 points for equal or higher TS of the opponent


You might think about a gradual decline of the baseline. So 1 point lower TS of opponent would still give +4 points, just as CR 154-155 would give +4 points. But I don`t think that`s needed.
MadTias



Joined: Jun 19, 2004

Post   Posted: Feb 20, 2009 - 19:50 Reply with quote Back to top

CircularLogic wrote:
How about splitting the baseline in two parts?
+5 points for CR 155+
+5 points for equal or higher TS of the opponent


You might think about a gradual decline of the baseline. So 1 point lower TS of opponent would still give +4 points, just as CR 154-155 would give +4 points. But I don`t think that`s needed.

I'm betting this is hard to code into the automated scoring... No system will ever be perfect. The current one is OK. It has to be easy to understand, I don't want to do calculations when LFG (yes, I want to win a season and I have to understand the scoring system to do that, so yes, I would do the calculations).
babelfilm



Joined: Dec 15, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2009 - 03:18 Reply with quote Back to top

I just mocked up a huge spread sheet on ELF scores. I based it on season X, since it was one of the most popular seasons ever and it was before Automated Scoring.

I did not include the new baseline system, as it would take forever to look up CR for all the old games.

A lot of interesting facts come to life, when you can see real time changes in overall scoring, as you change the points awarded for different things.

Basically we can decide what we consider a good ELF team, and then change the scoring after that.

So, what is important?
Scoring or inflicting lots of casualties?
"A few lucky 6-0 matches (and the rest doesn't matter) wins the tourney" or "as long as you win more than you lose you have a good shot at the trophy"?
Wide spread acores from top to bottom os a close race?

Give me your feedback.

I also noticed that a lot of the posters on this message board, have a CR above 155. So for you it not a problem playing strong coaches.

Of course it should be the best coach that wins, but do we want an elitist tourney, where only CR 155+ can play?

Also, the harder it is to find a game that fits our team and still gives the baseline, tthe harder it is to complete the cycle. I have a hard enough time finding a balanced game in certain categories, as it is.
Jakob_olsen



Joined: Nov 20, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2009 - 12:12 Reply with quote Back to top

I am still surprised that we are now at 10 votes for "Everuthing is fine" when only 5 people completed the cycle last season...

I acknowledge that most people want to have a baseline score. I just think the way it is structured now is flawed. I like CircularLogic's idea about splitting it in two. Maybe +2 points for 155+ CR, and +2 points for higher TS. I dont think it should give more points than that.

I must say, that i am not a big fan of the 155+ CR idea. Why 155 ? why not 160, or 150 ?.... The problem for me is, that it awards the coaches with high CR way too much, and i think that if a coach with CR 175 or 180 picks a game against a CR 156 coach, then that is cherrypicking to the extreme... And why award them for that, when that was what the system was supposed to prevent ?

What I really feel is, that we should simplify the rules a lot.
1. Get rid of the shutout rule. I don't see why a 1-0 game should give as much points as a 4-1 game.
2. Get rid of the bonus for 5+ touchdowns. Let the points you get for TD's be the reason to score as much as possible.
I also think that these 2 simplifications will help prevent excessive cherrypicking, since these 2 rules have driven people to search for games that they could win 5-0 or more.

For me, a good and simple scoring system would be:
1. Victory 10pts - Draw 5pts
2. +/- 2pts per TD
3. +1 per cas caused
And that's it....
Frankenstein



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2009 - 12:45 Reply with quote Back to top

As I have written you in a PM back then (a very long time ago), the scoring system could perhaps be improved further. It might be preferable to double/triple points for official tournaments and league games (double for minors, small leagues, blackbox, faction / triple for majors and scheduled games in high-end leagues such as SWL, WIL, OBBS).

Also, CR(opponent)-150 should be the maximum points you can get from arranged games (i.e. friendlies) in my opinion.

Jakob_olsen wrote:
What I really feel is, that we should simplify the rules a lot.
1. Get rid of the shutout rule. I don't see why a 1-0 game should give as much points as a 4-1 game.
2. Get rid of the bonus for 5+ touchdowns. Let the points you get for TD's be the reason to score as much as possible.

Agreed.
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2009 - 13:54 Reply with quote Back to top

Jakob_olsen wrote:
I am still surprised that we are now at 10 votes for "Everuthing is fine" when only 5 people completed the cycle last season...

I acknowledge that most people want to have a baseline score. I just think the way it is structured now is flawed. I like CircularLogic's idea about splitting it in two. Maybe +2 points for 155+ CR, and +2 points for higher TS. I dont think it should give more points than that.

I must say, that i am not a big fan of the 155+ CR idea. Why 155 ? why not 160, or 150 ?.... The problem for me is, that it awards the coaches with high CR way too much, and i think that if a coach with CR 175 or 180 picks a game against a CR 156 coach, then that is cherrypicking to the extreme... And why award them for that, when that was what the system was supposed to prevent ?

What I really feel is, that we should simplify the rules a lot.
1. Get rid of the shutout rule. I don't see why a 1-0 game should give as much points as a 4-1 game.
2. Get rid of the bonus for 5+ touchdowns. Let the points you get for TD's be the reason to score as much as possible.
I also think that these 2 simplifications will help prevent excessive cherrypicking, since these 2 rules have driven people to search for games that they could win 5-0 or more.

For me, a good and simple scoring system would be:
1. Victory 10pts - Draw 5pts
2. +/- 2pts per TD
3. +1 per cas caused
And that's it....


So because of my high CR, a CR160 opponent suddenly plays worse? Now that would be nice. This kind of thinking was exactly, why the Championship is a joke. If you and me play the same game with the same result, why should you get more points?

I can agree on the 'shutout-bonus encouraging stalling a bit too much' part. But I see nothing wrong with giving a slight bonus for scoreing 5+ TDs, which is not very common even in elf-ball-games.

The baseline is set at CR155, because that is the CR that an avergage coach that has a solid grip on the game reaches. Go lower, and you get alot of beginners, that have just picked or were lucky in their first games. Go higher and you limit the number of coaches more and more.

Honestly, with the system you suggest it would just lead to a race who could destroy utter noobs the most.

@Frankenstein:
With double/tripple score standard ranked games would become meaningless. I also think that the challenge is that much higher in majors compared to minors/tour - at least if you count the qualifier as majors, too. Giving a few selected leagues (selected by what standard?) a 50% bonus on their points would cause alot of trouble..
Jakob_olsen



Joined: Nov 20, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2009 - 14:21 Reply with quote Back to top

CircularLogic: You may be right. Maybe the baseline is needed... I just feel that, when we have a situation where only 5 coaches completed the cycle last season, then E.L.F is near-death, and a simplification of the rules could be the part of the cure. Maybe it could be implemented as a +2, or +5 point bonus for playing against "good" coaches, but as it is now, i think it is destructive.
Frankenstein



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2009 - 14:27 Reply with quote Back to top

CircularLogic wrote:
With double/tripple score standard ranked games would become meaningless. I also think that the challenge is that much higher in majors compared to minors/tour - at least if you count the qualifier as majors, too.

Simply can't be true that you get tons of points for excessive cherrypicking whereas you're awarded just 5 points for entering, for example, a TR 200 SMACK with pro elfs. That's incredibly ridiculous. Also, I think that standard games should be significantly less rewarded than scheduled games.

Incidentally, you migh want to apply the lower modifier for qualifiers.

CircularLogic wrote:
Giving a few selected leagues (selected by what standard?) a 50% bonus on their points would cause alot of trouble..

As for leagues, open leagues, the smaller modifier for open leagues which don't comply with the official ruleset (e.g. NWL) or aren't really scheduled (e.g. DBL), the larger modifier for scheduled games within SWL, WIL, Svenska League, OBBS (possibly only the higher divisions though) and perhaps several leagues I am not aware of. I actually would apply common sense here, maybe even decide by vote of group members.


Anyway, the E.L.F. scoring system seemed so massively borked to me that I couldn't be bothered to participate a second season, eventually realizing its flaws was too much of a disappointment. But that's just me, of course.


I think I need to add that I benefited from E.L.F.'s scoring system a lot myself, in fact. Nevertheless, proper cherrypicking was the group's only true challenge admittedly, and that's exactly the kind of challenge I am not interested in at all.
babelfilm



Joined: Dec 15, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2009 - 15:03 Reply with quote Back to top

If 2 CR 155 coaches play a match with equal teams, the winner will get a 10 point bonus.
If 2 CR 154 coaches play a match with equal teams, the winner will get no point bonus.

Why is the winning CR 155 coach eligible for a bonus, when the CR154 is not?
babelfilm



Joined: Dec 15, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2009 - 15:11 Reply with quote Back to top

The reason I play ELF, is that its a league where I can play when I feel like it.

If I have to enter a major league, to get more points, I might as well play to win that league. It is ridiculous that ELF should be dependent on another league for points.

If you want point for playing Chaos Cup, then join the Chaos Cup...
somertown



Joined: Aug 26, 2007

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2009 - 16:24 Reply with quote Back to top

I view ELF as a state of mind first and foremost. Are your elves willing to play anyone, anytime? "No I won't play you because your team looks too good" or "No I won't play you because your CR is too low" are both non-ELF attitudes.

I suggest that the laurels be awarded at the end of the season following a vote by all coaches that competed the cycle (under the old regime). A beauty contest for elves. Time to return to the forest if you come top of the points standings but your peers, the other elf coaches who who like to think they are better than the cherry pickers, don't honor you.
MadTias



Joined: Jun 19, 2004

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2009 - 18:40 Reply with quote Back to top

babelfilm wrote:

I also noticed that a lot of the posters on this message board, have a CR above 155. So for you it not a problem playing strong coaches.

Of course it should be the best coach that wins, but do we want an elitist tourney, where only CR 155+ can play?

Why should it be a "problem" for anyone to play strong coaches? If you want to win a season, you should be forced to play strong coaches. Otherwise the season scoring is a picking contest and a joke. If that is elitist by your standards, then I guess I'm elitist.
MadTias



Joined: Jun 19, 2004

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2009 - 18:43 Reply with quote Back to top

Jakob_olsen wrote:

I just feel that, when we have a situation where only 5 coaches completed the cycle last season, then E.L.F is near-death,

This was because of the advent of Blackbox. Look at the top teams in last season and you'll see a good deal of B teams. It isn't very surprising if they didn't complete a cycle (since they can't choose opponents). Let's drop this line of reasoning, shall we?
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