CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 00:26 |
|
My last match was TS142 orcs with 1 handicap vs TS168 chaos and the matching score was 983 - near perfect. The racial chart says a match of orcs vs chaos in the TS bracket 150-170 is 52.7% in favor or the orcs.
The only thing explains how a more than 15% TS difference results in a really good match is that a invisible ranking of the coaches influences the matchmaking. The records of the coaches in [B] were at that point 14/4/0 vs 10/3/10.
I hope I am mistaken, because that would mean that coaches who come to [B] to primarily kill would be getting easier and easier opponents, so they can hurt more and more. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 00:52 |
|
no such thing as BR. |
_________________
|
|
Lofwyr
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 00:59 |
|
Not officially, no.
But thats not the Point of Circ |
|
|
fly
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 01:12 |
|
i feel there are races not balanced. my 9 rotters got 11 ogre (6gobs 5 ogres) and it was just a bloody nightmare. i think number of players is a factor that's really missing out in the matchup process. (that as well will affect flings and gobs (maybe vamp) too, and it leads the way to fairer matchups.) [Hearing someone say his vamp team not getting scheduled is another evidence for that case.] |
_________________ I play for fun. I play to win.
Do you play CPOMB 'cause you can't win otherwise?
No, that's a rhetorical question. |
|
Stinkytroll
Joined: Oct 05, 2007
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 01:12 |
|
Isn't this because Orc TS is calculated way too low? I always thought it was, but I'm not sure. |
_________________ "What you don't understand you can make mean anything." |
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 01:15 |
|
Christer wrote: | Consider the following:
- Ideally, the scheduler will set up matches that give every coach a 50% theoretical chance to win.
- To do this, the system uses TS and BR (blackbox ranking) as factors for the scheduler.
Since people are expected to play to win, this is good in theory. However, a coach who plays a bashy style and focuses more on bashing than winning the game (not necessarily on purpose) will cause a slight problem. Coaches who bash "too much" will get a lower BR and therefore the most naïve scheduler will pair them up against lower TS teams. This will, of course, only result in that the bashy team has an even easier time to bash the opponent's team down. In the extreme case, this will continue until the bashy coach is so lowly ranked that his TS advantage in games will become nearly impossible to overcome and a "killer team" is created.
I am currently considering ways to overcome this spiral. |
That was posted in the other thread in August. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 01:17 |
|
DukeTyrion wrote: | I think I agree with Jan.
I want matches similar to [L], except with closer TR/TS.
If I get a BR 145 coach one game and BR 180 coach the next so beit.
My own BR will be adjusted accordingly after the win or loss.
I can't see any need to bring in a Swiss type tourney structure, or in fact any other wild and random changes, just match my TR/TS against someone and let us start playing |
That was one of my replies suggesting I would prefer not to have BR included in the formula. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 01:18 |
|
perhaps if a team fails to win for 10 games, it gets auto-retired? might be funny. |
_________________
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 01:20 |
|
Without BR in the formula, the 'BR' rating that people get will mean something, rather than just being their 'handicap' for the next match.
If BR is used in the formula, then it is tempting to make 3 teams, 2 normal and one Crap/Joke team, so that the bad team reduces you BR enough, that your other 2 teams get decent match-ups.
In a way, people might be tempted to run with joke teams as a form of self inflicted sand-bagging.
Then again, I know nothing of the current formula, so all this is just speculation |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 01:22 |
|
pythrr wrote: | perhaps if a team fails to win for 10 games, it gets auto-retired? might be funny. |
No |
_________________ Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 01:39 |
|
flyor wrote: | i feel there are races not balanced. my 9 rotters got 11 ogre (6gobs 5 ogres) and it was just a bloody nightmare. i think number of players is a factor that's really missing out in the matchup process. (that as well will affect flings and gobs (maybe vamp) too, and it leads the way to fairer matchups.) [Hearing someone say his vamp team not getting scheduled is another evidence for that case.] |
Teams below nuffles sacred 11 tend to be a bit over-rated by the TS formula because they are so vulnerable to being fouled etc. I know the formula already takes some account for it but perhaps having less than 11 players ought to be a bigger factor. |
_________________ 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." |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 01:57 |
|
SillySod wrote: | Teams below nuffles sacred 11 tend to be a bit over-rated by the TS formula because they are so vulnerable to being fouled etc. I know the formula already takes some account for it but perhaps having less than 11 players ought to be a bigger factor. |
This actually sounds like a good idea... Teams below 11 are weaker then the amount of skills and spp might suggest on paper. Having more players then your opponent is a great advantage... and especially if you start a game with more players to begin with. |
_________________ Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 08:22 |
|
Yes, I think it probably is. I'd rather it not be too. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
Why?
Why should a 'balanced game' involve the ability of the coaches at all?
If this is true it will be a major nail in the coffin for B for me. Because if B isnt offering me balanced games (and ive had a few already that REALLY wernt) then i don't see the point of it beyond giving 'foul and giggle, rinse and repeat.' crowd an easy time scratching their itch.
With my experience of B already less than positive, this has really depressed me. |
_________________ Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
  Posted:
Nov 14, 2008 - 10:16 |
|
SillySod wrote: |
Teams below nuffles sacred 11 tend to be a bit over-rated by the TS formula because they are so vulnerable to being fouled etc. I know the formula already takes some account for it but perhaps having less than 11 players ought to be a bigger factor. |
I think the TS for teams under 11 players is about right.
A killed team of 8 players, can destroy a rookie team of 11 players at the same rating. |
|
|
|