clarkin
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
 Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 15:03 |
 
|
I really like the blackbox concept, and in general would prefer TS alone be used to match up games, but I do see what Christer is trying to avoid (griefing teams).
| Unstoffe wrote: |
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. |
I also like Unstoffe's idea, but I suppose the whole point of this isn't to protect newbies is it? |
|
|
Laviak
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 15:04 |
|
Just for a moment, let's assume that the goals are:
1. Matches should have equal TS (or close to it)
2. If there are multiple matches with near equal TS, prefer those that have less CR gap.
Note: i'm using TS to mean "some measure of team strength, modified by racial factors as appropriate", and CR to mean "some measure of coaching ability" (be it BR, CR, or something else).
Here's a possible implementation:
- fumbbl_blackbox.ods (open office)
- fumbbl_blackbox.xls (excel)
As per my other post, the formula for each is a standard gaussian curve (makes a bell shape), so basically, you end up with two bell curves that you add together.
| Code: | The basic formula is: A * EXP (-((TS_DIFF-B)^2)/(2*C^2))
As an example, use A=100, B=0, C=20
|
The main weighting is on TS difference, with a slight adjustment based on CR difference. It would take a bit of tweaking - you can adjust the rate at which the curves drop off and/or the relative effect of TS and CR.
I certainly won't say it is better than the current formula used to determine suitability, it's not. The intentions are different. If the goal is 50% chance of winning, this method will never work .. but if the goal is to have even teams, and then to prefer even coaches, then it might be in with a shot. |
_________________
We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!. |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 15:05 |
|
| Unstoffe wrote: | OK, read the first post again 
| Christer wrote: |
The suitability score takes the win probability for both these figures based on respective ranking and strength, just like in R.
|
|
I went back, read the first post again. I also edited your quote to show the full sentence. Because you know.. the CR formula in [R] offsets the difference in CR with the difference in TS. That means if 2 coaches have different BBR but the same BR, they are not less likely to face each other, but the optimal TS matchup is shifted.
Case 1: BR and BBR are the same, the perfect match is equal TS (after racial modifiers).
Case 2: BR is the same but one coach has the higher BBR, then the perfect match has not equal TS but lower TS (again after racial modifier) for the coach with the higher BBR.
If case 1 and case 2 are present, then the match with the team that is TS wise closer to the perfect match is more likely (as it has a higher chance to end up with a better score after randomization). It is NOT the case (at least from my understanding), that there is a coach wise preselection and then teams are compared. Thus, being a coach causing less casualties doesn`t increase to play likeminded coaches, but rather gives you on average a TS advantage over bashing coaches. |
|
|
Azure
Joined: Jan 30, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 15:41 |
|
| Christer wrote: | All B coaches have a Blackbox Ranking (BR), and a Blackbox Bash Ranking (BBR), which work more or less the same as in R. BR is based on winning TDs, while the BBR is based on casualties.
|
If I understand this correctly...then if you are successful with a certain team and try to create a new team...good luck getting a fair match for your new team because you will have a high BR/BBR. So your new team will be playing up TS considerably from the start.
I would like to see the BR/BBR stats for various coaches - so it is easier to see why matches have occurred.
If the BR/BBR is 1/0/-1 as mentioned in chat, then my combined [B] record is 10/5/4 - so a BR of +6. My CAS is 8/2/9 - so my BBR is -1.
So a new team would use those to determine its games, right? |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 15:55 |
|
I think the purpose of B is to automate the process of scheduling a match that both coaches would reasonably agree to.
But clearly, TS isn't the whole story to getting a match agreed to by both sides. Free market forces demand a risk premium for A) playing a higher ranked coach and B) playing a bashier team. Want proof? Go ask any CR170 coach trying to get a match with Khemri in R.
If want to go strictly by TS, you don't need a scheduler. R does that very well right now. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 16:00 |
|
| westerner wrote: | I think the purpose of B is to automate the process of scheduling a match that both coaches would reasonably agree to.
But clearly, TS isn't the whole story to getting a match agreed to by both sides. Free market forces demand a risk premium for A) playing a higher ranked coach and B) playing a bashier team. Want proof? Go ask any CR170 coach trying to get a match with Khemri in R.
If want to go strictly by TS, you don't need a scheduler. R does that very well right now. |
No it doesn`t. Want proof? Go ask any CR170 coach trying to get a match with Orcs in R against equal TS.
Your whole post is contradictory. In [R] the free market forces are in place. So if you mirror those factors in [B], then exactly how will it differ from [R]? |
|
|
Optihut
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 16:07 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Oh.. and I`m with DukeTyrion... back to [R] that is. |
That's fine then - Blackbox isn't for everybody and if you feel more comfortable in ranked, well, nobody is forcing you to use the blackbox.
I think westerner's explanation makes sense, though.
Ultimately we'll see how it pans out and I'm sure that Christer will implement changes, if it becomes necessary. Right now I feel that the opponents of the scheduler adopt the argumentation "The scheduler is flawed. I know how to fix it. If it doesn't get fixed the way I demand it to be, then I will boycott the blackbox." If that is the aim, then my stance would be that if people don't want to help out testing, they should make good on their promises and indeed leave the blackbox division. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 16:15 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | You don't get it.
TS is there to provide us with an indicator of fair games between TEAMS. If we play on even terms, and I'm a master bloodbowler and you are a n00b, I win 95 times out of 100 given even teams.
I think pairings should simply go by TS. (and then, we can work to make TS better and better)
What's wrong with THAT? I don't see why DivB should help bad coaches by providing them easier matchups to be able to compete against PeteW on equal terms. |
Sorry, I don't get it either.
Playing on strictly even-TS terms, with you winning and/or inflicting destruction the overwhelming majority of the time, is not fun for me. That's why I'm unlikely to agree to an even-TS matchup with you in [R] especially if your team is bashier.
I think it's fine to allow a less experienced coach to compete against an expert on more equal (but not 50-50) terms. Some say this will lead to metagaming BR down to get easier matches... But to what end? |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Freppa
Joined: Oct 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 16:20 |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 16:20 |
|
| westerner wrote: | | That's why I'm unlikely to agree to an even-TS matchup with you in [R] especially if your team is bashier. |
And you know how this behaviour is commonly called (usually featuring accusing links like those to your humans or woodies)?
And you know, why people started calling for a Blackbox? |
|
|
Unstoffe
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 16:22 |
|
| Unstoffe wrote: | OK, read the first post again
|
@CircularLogic - just realised that could have looked a bit confrontational, sorry if so... I meant 'I went back and read the first post, and cleared up my own misunderstanding', not 'you should read the first post'.
Stupid english language
That said, I still think, from my own understanding of Christer's post, that if two coaches have different BBR but similar BR, then they're unlikely to play with any combination of TS. I await any clarification he may post with interest... |
_________________
British or thereabouts? Check out the White Isle League |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 16:27 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | westerner wrote: | I think the purpose of B is to automate the process of scheduling a match that both coaches would reasonably agree to.
But clearly, TS isn't the whole story to getting a match agreed to by both sides. Free market forces demand a risk premium for A) playing a higher ranked coach and B) playing a bashier team. Want proof? Go ask any CR170 coach trying to get a match with Khemri in R.
If want to go strictly by TS, you don't need a scheduler. R does that very well right now. |
No it doesn`t. Want proof? Go ask any CR170 coach trying to get a match with Orcs in R against equal TS.
Your whole post is contradictory. In [R] the free market forces are in place. So if you mirror those factors in [B], then exactly how will it differ from [R]? |
You misunderstood my point. Very few want to play against CR170 bashy coaches at even TS in [R]. The minority that does, can easily find those matches in [R]. You don't need scheduling technology for that.
B would differ from R in that it automates the free market process, allowing a much more rapid and consistent match scheduling = more total matches played. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 16:34 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | westerner wrote: | | That's why I'm unlikely to agree to an even-TS matchup with you in [R] especially if your team is bashier. |
And you know how this behaviour is commonly called (usually featuring accusing links like those to your humans or woodies)?
And you know, why people started calling for a Blackbox? |
Those who get declined call it cherrypicking. Though sometimes the same people are cherrypickers themselves.
Those who decline call it a risk premium.
The 30-minute process of making/declining multiple offers before agreeing to a match is called [R]. That's what I hope B can help with. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 16:40 |
|
| westerner wrote: | | JanMattys wrote: | You don't get it.
TS is there to provide us with an indicator of fair games between TEAMS. If we play on even terms, and I'm a master bloodbowler and you are a n00b, I win 95 times out of 100 given even teams.
I think pairings should simply go by TS. (and then, we can work to make TS better and better)
What's wrong with THAT? I don't see why DivB should help bad coaches by providing them easier matchups to be able to compete against PeteW on equal terms. |
Sorry, I don't get it either.
Playing on strictly even-TS terms, with you winning and/or inflicting destruction the overwhelming majority of the time, is not fun for me. That's why I'm unlikely to agree to an even-TS matchup with you in [R] especially if your team is bashier.
I think it's fine to allow a less experienced coach to compete against an expert on more equal (but not 50-50) terms. Some say this will lead to metagaming BR down to get easier matches... But to what end? |
1- don't mix bashyness with even teams.
2- Playing against me in blackbox on strictly even TS teams (I'm assuming I'm better than you for argumentation purposes only) will make you a better BB coach in the end. Instead of complaining that you lose, you should look at my playstyle and learn how to make yours better. We all started like this and we all improved this way. Giving you a TS advantage over me so that we can play on even ground just makes you feel you are as good as I am, which a) you are not and b) won't make feel like you need to get better. And c) will be quite frustrating for me, because I know on even ground I would win, and I find myself to struggle against you. Don't assume we HAVE to protect poor coaches, and that it's right for the very good ones to swallow everything in the name of equality... Gaming is not a democracy: the better wins. The only problem is learning how to lose and (at the same time) learning how to improve after you've lost. Asking for equality and ADDING coaches skill level in the equation to me is a conceptual error, even before starting to figure out an exact math formula.
3- Sorry, but if PeteW always wins and always causes mayhem, then it's his right to do so. If the Blackbox pairs on even TS, and a coach is able to win "the overwhelming majority of time" (quoting you) then he's the best damn coach in the world and TOTALLY deserves a wonderful w/t/l record. And as a side note, I'd love to play him on even terms. Will I get thrashed like the rest? Probably, but I would LOVE to savour the single time when I will be able to take him down. With pride. If you give me TS advantage, it would be much less glorious.
I guess it's just different approaches to gaming. If I am worse, I try to learn, but I want to play on even ground with the biggies and, eventually, lose till I get better. |
_________________
 |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 16:40 |
|
Westerner, maybe you should read the initial Blackbox thread. Automating the [R] matchmaking is about the opposite of what the people had in mind. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Why did GW nerf guar...
Search
