JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
 Posted:
Oct 20, 2014 - 21:00 |
 
|
Pro Elves also have a hard time climbing TV. They die. They die a lot. High Elves are tougher, so they are more likely to live to get skills, which make them tougher still, making them more likely to get more skills (and thus more TV). It's a circular, spiraling thing. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Dunenzed
Joined: Oct 28, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 20, 2014 - 21:00 |
|
That would be great logic if Rock teams were significantly under represented in R. 
The observation has potential implications for theories about certain races not being popular or fun to play, or rock teams not being able to get games in R. You could also use the observation to make comment about the failure of the new scheduler format to address a decline in box participation.
It wasn't an attack on either position. |
_________________
Join the Human League Premiership! |
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 20, 2014 - 21:11 |
|
Just a thought on the High Elf stats at very high TV - wondering if we are reading too much into it. How many games are we actually talking about here? I imagine rather few. Is it possible this is simply showing that a coach with a high TV High Elf side was active during the period that the graphs cover? |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2014 - 00:14 |
|
Having coached both in different open perpetual formats (but not Blackbox), I can just tell you that they "sweet spot" differently. It's 'cause your HE team will be full of cog linos with Blodge/Wrodge and toolbox skills with usually a couple rookies, while your PE team really only builds 1-2 that way, the rest get recycled 'cause they get hurt. Positionals are similar, but PE ones start better and HE ones are easier to protect, ultimately meaning that the HE ones get more expensive as they're not always rebuilding (well, less). Also, all that extra AV means more cash and, with more guys to protect and better basic players, more incentive to run reserves, even one of which bumps TV up quite a lot but is probably worth it for elder teams that have to be ready to face anything.
They are so similar on paper, but anyone who knows both knows that they play so differently, except at very low TV. I prefer High Elves far and away, but I've done a bunch of both, and they only play similarly at low TV, or when Nuffle takes a big hand in the game (their main difference is in how they deal with adversity; the PE go for the big play, the HE stay out of the bad spot, but when Nuffle pats you you don't need the big play, and when He pounds you there's no staying clean). |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2014 - 02:14 |
|
| Endzone wrote: | | Just a thought on the High Elf stats at very high TV - wondering if we are reading too much into it. How many games are we actually talking about here? I imagine rather few. Is it possible this is simply showing that a coach with a high TV High Elf side was active during the period that the graphs cover? |
Although the High Elves sitting at home in Ulthuan having a bloodweiser in front of the cabalvision might think so, they are unfortunately not capable of saving the Box by themselves. The number of High Elf games at 1900+ is a total of 109 at the moment. However this is helped by the data showing TVs including any inducements received. This means that for example this recent game, with High Elves at 1680 TV + 400 inducements, will register as a 2080 TV High Elf game. So I think it's mostly down to one or two solid efforts at mid to high TV.
Working with Koadah on finding a way to display the data without inducement money, but I doubt it will teach us anything new, because in theory all races get induced (this game counts as a 2150 TV Nurgle game). But if anything, I fear the numbers will look even grimmer, if we can find a way to display them.
By the way, the graph covers all games since the last big scheduler fix. |
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010 |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2014 - 10:26 |
|
Ha that elf with -6 av is awesome! |
_________________
 |
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2014 - 11:14 |
|
Wood elves peak between 2500 and 3000.  |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating) |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2014 - 11:47 |
|
|
Throweck
Joined: Feb 23, 2013
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2014 - 12:09 |
|
Came up with this as I am bored at work. DISCLAIMER: It does not contain any view point or ideas, it is purely for S&G.
To dream, the impossible dream
To bash the unbeatable foe
To elf with unbearable fortune
To run where the dwarves can not go
To right the unrightable wrong
To love WMDs from afar
To try when your team is too weary
To reach the unreachable GR!
This is our quest
To follow that star
It isn’t that hopeless
It isn’t that far
To fight for the right
To be scheduled and drawn
To be willing to march into Hell
Against bash then some more
And I know if we’ll only be true
To this glorious quest
That our humans will lie peaceful and calm
When they’re laid to their rest
And the box will be better for this
That some coaches, scorned and covered with scars
Still strove with their last ounce of courage
To activate regardless of CR. |
|
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2014 - 10:59 |
|
If we don't want to force versatility on people, but want to enable or encourage it, how is this for a suggestion?
You compute a versatility index for every coach's blackbox activity.
This score can simply be the spread of games across races, or even across races x TV brackets. Alternatively, you could compute the relative use of uncommon box teams, rewarding people who don't play nurg/chaos but do play goblins, flings, and ogres more.
Then you include this index in matchmaking, with the suitability of the matchup deterimined in some % by the similarity of the versatility index of the coach. Alternatively, you could allow coaches to set a minimum versatility level they are willing to be matched against, hard-disabling all opponents with a lower versatility level.
I think this could be a great way to soft-enforce versatility. Those who care about it a lot will mostly meet eachother and play all sorts of matchups. Those who really wish to focus on a single team still can, but will mostly run into eachother. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2014 - 11:05 |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2014 - 11:11 |
|
While an interesting idea Christer has said a few times that he wouldn't like to make a change that would significantly reduce the number of draws made. If your only option is to play against a CPOMB team then that would still have to be drawn even if there is an algorithm that makes the match up less likely when other options are available.
Also as someone who hates mirror matches I had no quibble when christer removed the code the stopped them happening but I wouldn't like to see a system which made them more likely than anything else. But I guess that's just my personal opinion. I've never liked elf vs elf match ups either and so on. |
_________________
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2014 - 12:42 |
|
Had a really bad match up just now in the box, still preferable to playing stupid min max teams at low tv, but it was just a waste of time really, though not an unpleasant match up like the min maxed rookier hunters of old and my opponent was a nice coach. But the game its self was basically impossible. https://fumbbl.com/p/match?id=3612940 I had no answer for any of his skilled players.
The new scheduler essentially makes running a Khemri team in the box with any success impossible now, they are incredibly slow to develop to as soon as they have played 15 games by which point they only have a couple of skills they are then playing 200 TV up. I think elves of any flavour and skaven would probably have coped ok in this match up but slow teams don't really have a chance.
Why not just use the old 15% scheduler we used to have, but give teams a 30 game buffer in which they can't play teams that have played twice the number of games as them or more to protect against min max rookie hunters. It seems like the easiest way to move forward and fairest for everyone really.
Personally I would rather not get scheduled than get scheduled in a game that I have almost zero chance of getting a win or draw out of. As there wasn't much fun to get out of it.
Just my 2 cents |
_________________
|
|
cdassak
Joined: Oct 23, 2013
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2014 - 12:55 |
|
| Garion wrote: | Had a really bad match up just now in the box, still preferable to playing stupid min max teams at low tv, but it was just a waste of time really, though not an unpleasant match up like the min maxed rookier hunters of old and my opponent was a nice coach. But the game its self was basically impossible. https://fumbbl.com/p/match?id=3612940 I had no answer for any of his skilled players.
The new scheduler essentially makes running a Khemri team in the box with any success impossible now, they are incredibly slow to develop to as soon as they have played 15 games by which point they only have a couple of skills they are then playing 200 TV up. I think elves of any flavour and skaven would probably have coped ok in this match up but slow teams don't really have a chance.
Why not just use the old 15% scheduler we used to have, but give teams a 30 game buffer in which they can't play teams that have played twice the number of games as them or more to protect against min max rookie hunters. It seems like the easiest way to move forward and fairest for everyone really.
Personally I would rather not get scheduled than get scheduled in a game that I have almost zero chance of getting a win or draw out of. As there wasn't much fun to get out of it.
Just my 2 cents |
Surprised you took Wiz + babe. I think this match up called for saw and bribe against 11-man Vampire squad. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2014 - 12:59 |
|
naaa saw would have been a bad idea because he had an ag5 vamp and 2 st5 blodge vamps, so they would have been able to remove him turn 1 with ease also he is av7. Bribe could have been useful maybe. But I dont have any DP yet anyway as my team is woefully under developed. Tbh it wouldnt have mattered what I took as I had no way to keep my ball carrier safe in that match up. his vamps were too well developed and I only had 1 tackle. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
