JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
 Posted:
Oct 30, 2014 - 22:14 |
 
|
d86 table (added pun, as the player is out of the game)
11-46: BH
51-56: MNG
61-63: MNG
64-65: Miss 2 games
66: Miss 3 games
71-72: Niggle
73-76: Statloss (1 ea)
81-86: Dead
but it's neither here nor there. CRP is what we got for the foreseeable future. How to make the best of it vis-a-vis the existing divisions, that's really where we can do good. Improving the scheduler, the gamefinder, the League structure, that sort of thing, that's within the realm of the possible. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 30, 2014 - 23:52 |
|
| Dunenzed wrote: | | Endzone wrote: | | I think the work Christer puts into this is amazing. Personally, I would prefer there to be a minimum threshold because I don't think a 0.7% win probability for the underdog based on TV is a match up worth having. |
I think some more data on actual results at TV differences over 15% is really needed. I'm not 100% on the scheduler math but I think that 0.7% win probability for an underdog at extreme levels might be understating their chances.
I had a quick look at the Wild Dragons looking for games with more than a 15% TV difference. I saw 4 games in this category, but one of those was an FC game last year so before the scheduler change and nothing to do with the current issues that prevent this team from being played.
Of the 3 others, one was a loss vs High elves, where the Dragons were the overdog by 280TV.
The next two were wins, one vs chaos at 850TV gap, and one vs nurgle at a 340TV gap.
So thats 3 match pairings outside 15% in about 20 games played with this team since the scheduler change, but the only one they lost was when they were the overdog.
Granted this is anacdotal evidence from a coach that is much better at this game than me, and is playing one of the top tier races, so those factors (along with luck) obviously influenced the outcome more than TV.
And maybe the coach hated beating a chaos team playing up 850TV, and would have had more enjoyment beating a TV matched chaos team.
But my point is solid data on TV differences and match results would be of interest. To what extent is this perception a gap of more 15% TV creates an unfair game actually reflected in the match results. Is it more than the advantage certain racial pairings might deliver? |
So, you now understand that my views are not based off losing a few games, they are based off the perception of what games I think should be played.(Although you will note that in one of the games I took 11 casualties, which does not exactly help the theory of rebuilding from a low tv)
You could also have a look at the Barons, where I have played as the team with the much higher in tv (and mainly won), but have also voiced the concern that I do not think the game should ever have been scheduled.
My concerns are not that of a losing coach, they are the concerns of a coach who believes that (except in majors), the majority of coaches do not enjoy wild mis-matches on tv. The coach with the lesser tv is fighting an uphill struggle, whilst the higher tv coach can feel uncomfortable having turned up for a gun fight and noticing his opponent has been armed with a water pistol.
Anyway, I think I have more than made my point on the capping of tv difference games, and any further points would just derail what has for the most part been a very good discussion thread, so I will leave it here and wait to see what outcome if any arises. |
|
|
cameronhawkins
Joined: Aug 19, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2014 - 01:54 |
|
But what rubric are you using to determine fairness (or as you call it "games that should be played")?
TV has no inherent meaning, it's just a useful number that often––but not always––correlates with a team's net power. But there are other ways to measure as well, and other things that affect whether a match is fair or fun.
For example, I think that a 1200k Halfling team would fare better against a 1800k Khemri team than a 1400k Dwarf team. Granted, it wouldn't do well against either, but I think it would be much closer to that 35% win-rate that is described as the intent of the designers.
You seem to be arguing for a 'TV-only' calculator, but where's the evidence that that provides good matches?
'Good' is certainly subjective, of course, but you could help us out by at least defining 'good' in your eyes, and then showing how your method is conducive to those types of games. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2014 - 02:07 |
|
The more I read, the more I like the idea of capping TV differential at, say, 20%, or putting a floor on suitability. That, and the "most popular teams" suitability bump would probably solve the two major perversities people are complaining about without noticeably impacting the environment for the ones who like it as is.
Before doing a ∆TV cap or suitability floor, here's a simple-ish question, to see how real the problem really is. What % of box games is the favorite more than 115% or 120% of the dog? What % of box games have a suitability below 750 or 700? If it's 5% it's a problem worth addressing; if it's 0.5% not so much. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Dunenzed
Joined: Oct 28, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2014 - 02:43 |
|
My concern with a ∆TV cap is that it would undermine the rookie protection that been put in place. It would increase the viability minmaxing or sweet spotting. My human team had an 80 game stretch under the old scheduler trying to rebuild up to the HLP 1600 level. As my post recovery blog explained there were a number of factors behind it being such rough patch - but the matched TV games vs minmax teams were definately part of it. I accept brutality can happen at any TV against any team build, I'm not afraid of it. But many of the most 'unfair' or 'unfun' games I've had have been matched TV games.
A suitability floor would likey lead to less games which would be most likely noticed in off peak times. It's tough enough to get a game in the box off peak. Putting additional restrictions in place preventing match ups isn't going to help. |
_________________
Join the Human League Premiership! |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2014 - 02:59 |
|
| Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | Calcium wrote: | | koadah wrote: | Do you basher boys have no stones?
A person might think that you like to dish it out but can't take it. |
Think what you like, but the same ppl that are now crying about clawPOMB etc. are the same ppl that cried about LRB4 DP.
Simply put, their definition of blood bowl is one without the blood, because they can't stomach their pixels being RIP'd. If coaches like you get their way that will damage this site far more than clawPOMB ever will..... |
Honestly, this thread is actually one of the few semi-productive and less whiny threads on the subject that we have in the forums. I'm not sure if all the tough guy posturing will be helpful in that regard.  |
Haha, and despite whats said, the idea that we're all pixel huggers is laughable and easily demonstrably false. I honestly feel like anyone invested in this conversation isn't a pixel hugger and it's a strawman at this point. |
|
|
cameronhawkins
Joined: Aug 19, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2014 - 03:36 |
|
It's weird––
You'd think that the people who try to get all condescending and accuse of others of being 'pixel huggers' and wanting 'soft games' would be the ones who coach balls-to-wall, casualty-prone teams like this one. You know, the type where your outlook has to be 'It doesn't matter how many injuries we suffer, as long as we win'.
But in reality, it's usually the exact opposite–– you take a look at the teams these guys play, and it's always the same... high armor, high strength... Orcs, Chaos, Dwarves, Chaos Dwarves... If you didn't know any better, you'd think they were trying to avoid casualties like the plague, to the point of coaching teams that aren't even that great at winning... |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2014 - 04:49 |
|
Great crosspost with Dunenzed in another thread talking bout tunks. -av-av-av-av-av-av and no fear. |
|
|
Dunenzed
Joined: Oct 28, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2014 - 04:52 |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 02, 2014 - 21:00 |
|
So, here is a perfect example of why I stopped activating my Wood Elves;
https://fumbbl.com/p/blackbox?op=scheduler&r=2014-11-02+20%3A45
I waited until the draw number were odd and activated 2 teams (woodies and pro elves), to avoid a silly matchup and I get an 1810 Nurgle Team with my 1420 (6 Loners) recovering Wood Elves.
The bizarre thing is, there is a 1490 CD team and a 1370 Human team also in the draw. I can see that the suitability for me to play the Humans is 991, so if my matchup against the Nurgles is 674, then the scheduler must believe the Nurgle 1810 v CD 1490 to be worse than 564? (881 + 674 > 991 + X).
Anyway, time for the Woodies to take another break. |
|
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 02, 2014 - 21:05 |
|
Woodies Live fast & die hard.
Probably better to play ranked if you don't have the, um, stomach. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 02, 2014 - 21:08 |
|
| BillBrasky wrote: | Woodies Live fast & die hard.
Probably better to play ranked if you don't have the, um, stomach. |
Bill, I have played more Wood Elf games in the box than you have.
I have no problem playing them, I just have a problem being given stupid matchups, even more so when there are more logical matchups from the scheduler. |
|
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 02, 2014 - 21:13 |
|
So you've played more, and lost your nerve? |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 02, 2014 - 21:17 |
|
| BillBrasky wrote: | | So you've played more, and lost your nerve? |
Bill, try thinking about what you are typing before you hit Submit.
I am bored of getting stupid matchups from the scheduler since the change. This thread is about possible changes to Blackbox and the scheduler. If there is a problem with the scheduler, this is the place to post it.
If you want to beat your chest and declare yourself the almighty Blackbox one, go ahead, but it's hardly going to help this discussion. |
|
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 02, 2014 - 21:19 |
|
I am of course playing.
Sorry to disturb your delicate sensibilities... |
|
|
|
|
| |
Roster Tiers
Search
