JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
 Posted:
Oct 23, 2014 - 07:19 |
 
|
| Christer wrote: | | The whole point of the rookie protection aspect is to discourage minmaxing, which was pretty significant at this particular TV. |
While it was significantly moaned about I remember Voodoomike saying that it was only about 5% of total matches, was this accurate and/or too much in your opinion?
| Garion wrote: | | So the old system worked pretty well apart from the rookie protection side of things, while the new scheduler creates the aforementioned match up issues. Why not use the 15% one we used to have but introduce a rookie protection forumla to that. As I said on the previous page, something like First 30 games you cannot play a team that has played twice as many games or more than your team. |
Honestly the only really bad min maxers were the 1000 TV Pact, by 1300/1400 TV you should have the tools to deal with minmaxers.
I think the rookie protection is a good idea, but I would only have it for 10 or so games. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
The limit for rookie protection wasn't chosen at random. What I did was bring up a chart of rating vs games played like so:
The blue series is obviously the rating, and the vertical bars are showing standard deviation. This only includes unretired teams.
As you can see, the TV sort of levels out, and in particular you'll see that the lower standard deviation limit is roughly at TV 1400. My intent with the 15 game protection was to give rookie teams a chance to get within the range where most teams end up at the high end of # games. To quantify this in terms of the chart, I wanted the average rating to be within one standard deviation of the upper end, meaning above 1400TV. After 10 games, the average TV is roughly 1370, which is below this limit of mine, whereas after 15 games, average TV is at 1480.
That's where the 15 game limit comes from, and I see no compelling reason to lower it to 10 games. The chart above was generated today, and is largely the same as it was back when I chose the 15 game limit. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2014 - 10:58 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: |
| Garion wrote: | | So the old system worked pretty well apart from the rookie protection side of things, while the new scheduler creates the aforementioned match up issues. Why not use the 15% one we used to have but introduce a rookie protection forumla to that. As I said on the previous page, something like First 30 games you cannot play a team that has played twice as many games or more than your team. |
Honestly the only really bad min maxers were the 1000 TV Pact, by 1300/1400 TV you should have the tools to deal with minmaxers.
I think the rookie protection is a good idea, but I would only have it for 10 or so games. |
And Amazons and I also think it depends which race you are playing, I remember that team of beastmen being the perfect example of this. the one with the name that was something like this - faskhfdhfsdhojgh
Some races could have coped ok with them, others just didn't have a hope in hell really.
As I said before though I think we could have the best of both worlds, use the old 15% match making forumla but include a rookie protection for 15 games as Christer has for this version of the scheduler. I doubt the box scheduler could ever be perfect because of the amount of variables. But I think that would get us as close as possible. |
_________________
 |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2014 - 11:38 |
|
yup that's the one. Ridiculous team and glad teams like them are mostly done away with. |
_________________
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 26, 2014 - 21:52 |
|
So are we ready to consolidate this into a poll thread? If so, would it look like this?
Which "fix" would you like to see in Blackbox?
A) Suitability of most popular races increased with respect to each other
B) Hard cap of XX% TV differential
C) Both
D) Neither
E) Pie
Not actually making such a thread myself… just pointing out that we've boiled it down to two live suggestions that between them seem to solve everybody's problems but probably aren't without detractors.
A was proposed by the big man himself, and seems to have been well-received by most. A couple people have pooh-poohed it, but haven't pointed out serious objections, TBH.
For B, I think we'd be best off to know if there's a serious win% or cas rate correlation to a serious handicap. For example, is 800k worse than 600k, is that worse than 400k, etc. (Answer is probably yes, which is probably why B was proposed.) |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 26, 2014 - 22:18 |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Oct 26, 2014 - 22:27 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | | For B, I think we'd be best off to know if there's a serious win% or cas rate correlation to a serious handicap. For example, is 800k worse than 600k, is that worse than 400k, etc. (Answer is probably yes, which is probably why B was proposed.) |
I'm not in favour of B, I enjoy the games with TV gaps, whichever side of it I'm on. And I've had upset results from either side. However, if that was to be considered, I see absolutely no reason at all why we would look at whether there was a correlation with cas rate. Win rate makes sense. Cas? That really doesn't. |
_________________
 Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 26, 2014 - 22:32 |
|
I don't think much good will come from a poll-thread. There are too many uninformed opinions for that. It's better to argue your case thoroughly here.
But regarding TV caps: it's maybe enough to crank up the unsuitability dial on the TV gaps a little. I say maybe, because I had a great time playing a team double my team's TV (yes, that's 2x). That's most likely down to the Chef and the opponent not going for POMB though. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 26, 2014 - 22:37 |
|
wiat, are you guys under the misaprehension that this is a democracy?
hahahahahahaha
oh wait, you're serious? |
_________________
 |
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 26, 2014 - 23:08 |
|
| xnoelx wrote: | | JackassRampant wrote: | | For B, I think we'd be best off to know if there's a serious win% or cas rate correlation to a serious handicap. For example, is 800k worse than 600k, is that worse than 400k, etc. (Answer is probably yes, which is probably why B was proposed.) |
I'm not in favour of B, I enjoy the games with TV gaps, whichever side of it I'm on. And I've had upset results from either side. However, if that was to be considered, I see absolutely no reason at all why we would look at whether there was a correlation with cas rate. Win rate makes sense. Cas? That really doesn't. |
I guess it's because the formula is also an area which can control how people perceive the game and therefore whether they are willing to play in or stay in the box.
Having a good record play constantly up 600tv might be one thing, but if the coach is losing 50% of his team each match doing it, then he might decide to start playing elsewhere. |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Oct 26, 2014 - 23:26 |
|
Ah, yeah, I could've been clearer there. I'm not denying that it could provide useful information for people trying to decide where they want to play. I just don't think it should factor into the scheduler itself at all. |
_________________
Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 26, 2014 - 23:42 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | | wiat, are you guys under the misaprehension that this is a democracy? |
fortunately it's not!
oh wait, are you drunk-typing?  |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 27, 2014 - 00:37 |
|
Nothing of the sort. But it is a living thing, and Christer isn't here to see everybody quit in disgust, so if there's a better way to do things, this kind of group-talk is a good way to ferret it out. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
paradocks
Joined: Jun 14, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 27, 2014 - 02:14 |
|
My 2 cents is this: Rookie protection actually helps the minmaxers. If I'm coaching a new rookie team of mine, I don't care if it gets retired by a cpomb minmax team - I actually look forward to the opportunity of being able to hurt their star while I'm risking nothing in the match. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
