cdassak
Joined: Oct 23, 2013
|
 Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 20:41 |
 
|
| dode74 wrote: |
Really, really stepping away now... |
I dont believe you |
_________________
 |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 21:08 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Unless there's actually some data to back this up then it's just an attempt confirm via theorybowl your own preconceptions as to why the data isn't showing what you think the data should show. |
Here would be a tool to gather more data, even if once we get it we could dismiss it as a tiny subset void of context.
Meanwhile, dear Uedder, your argument is invalid and please bring me a cup of coffee. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2015 - 21:12 |
|
Nice, I see we have moved this discussion over to the CPOMB thread to pound the sand for a little over there and tack on another 10 pages of circular discussions.
 |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2015 - 21:13 |
|
| cdassak wrote: | | dode74 wrote: |
Really, really stepping away now... |
I dont believe you |
I think he is serious. I just saw him leave the room, walk across the road into the liquor store and then drove off into the sunset. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2015 - 21:13 |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2015 - 21:15 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | PainState wrote: | Nice, I see we have moved this discussion over to the CPOMB thread to pound the sand for a little over there and tack on another 10 pages of circular discussions.
|
So you thought that you would bump this thread to even things up?  |
Not really, just find in amusing that the same group of coaches "bounce" between the two threads, it dies off for a month on so then off we go again.
 |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2015 - 19:51 |
|
| PainState wrote: | Nice, I see we have moved this discussion over to the CPOMB thread to pound the sand for a little over there and tack on another 10 pages of circular discussions.
|
That's not what I see. Sometimes it's sand, sometimes it's clouds. Sometimes it's politics. There's usually only one party that profits from poisoning that well. Comparable cases in other contexts can be brought upon request.
JimmyFantastic wondered what attrition rate would be acceptable. Before tackling that question, we'd need to estimate attrition rates. This could be done by generating synthetic data, or the good ol' empirical way. Here would be a recipe to estimate efficiency rates from the field: take some Sprint results; look at the numbers for the teams; validate or adjust using other random sprints.
From what I can see, the attrition rates go usually beyond 4 CAS per game, and 0 CAS is rarer than 10+. |
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 23, 2015 - 22:23 |
|
I touch late, but:
| Quote: | | Martin - I specifically said "challenges", not scheduled leagues. CRP page 31 refers. |
Yep, but you said it in the context of Box.
Box isn't challenge.
You could call it "extremely short scheduled". Or whatnot.
But the only thing in the rules about what a challenge actually is, says that it is a problem that the challenge system can be abused to prevent a team from playing anyone.
The Box scheduler can't do that.
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 23, 2015 - 23:53 |
|
| plasmoid wrote: | | Box isn't challenge. (...) The Box scheduler can't do that. |
Box isn't its scheduler. It's basically a pool of teams you can pair either using a scheduler for open play or another pairing system for tournament play. The Fumbbl Cup even shows that we can pair R and B teams.
Since it's possible to organize tournaments in Box, there should be ways, at least in principle, to pair specific teams in Box, and therefore to enforce challenges.
***
My recollection is that I brought challenges as an example of things in CRP1 that weren't implemented in B. There are other ways to parry the appeal to purity, but it might be better to simply move forward with a related idea.
Let's call it the King of the Hill. Start with biggest, baddest, beefiest team and call it the King. Invent a system to establish contendership. Choose a match format: a best of N games, a fixed number of rounds match with various teams, whatever. Add some caveat regarding treasury use, or not. Details don't matter much.
There are two obvious points in this system.
The first is to find a way to settle the "Legend" hectoring the way the Boxing world does.
The second is to make sure CPOMBers (assuming they dominate) square off with one another the Highlander way. |
Last edited by thoralf on %b %25, %2015 - %18:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2015 - 10:40 |
|
Hi Thoralf - not my point though.
My point was merely that the box scheduler currently does not allow coaches to choose their opponent or refuse games.
This makes it impossible to shut anybody out, which in turn means that there is no need to use the rule intended for challenge Leagues in the CRP (which Dode suggested Box ought to).
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
Funnily enough, I implemented challenges at one point. While a cool concept, it simply doesn't work in an open online setting like FUMBBL. Without spending too much time detailing the core problem it comes down to the fact that you're not in the same room, so it's really hard to deal with inherent latencies in the challenge process.
In a way, the R LFG tool is a partial challenge system, and I am pretty sure that going all the way with the challenges as proposed in the rulebook would cause an endless stream of problems for the staff.
Inherently, FUMBBL is very different from a tabletop league in three ways:
- It's anonymous. People don't know each-other in the same way they would in a tabletop league
- There's an inherent latency in the communication. It's impossible to say that someone received a message / challenge. They might have logged off, or simply left the keys
- It's much larger scale. A lot more coaches than in a traditional tabletop league and everyone's "talking" with everyone else at the same time.
These points create very hard problems for any kind of scheduling, and are things I've spent quite significant amounts of time to deal with in both the Ranked LFG tool and the Blackbox scheduler. For a large-scale challenge system, I feel handling the problems would be very very hard to deal with and because of that I'm currently not considering reimplementing challenges. The previous incarnation of challenges was simply not used because of a mix of these types of problems and usability.
I do appreciate suggestions and ideas though, but have some thoughts on these things. Won't derail this thread into that though and might write a blog entry about it instead 
In order to keep this sort of on topic though, I don't think a challenge system would be suitable in the Blackbox format. It's simply not compatible with the core concept of what it's trying to do and I don't really see how challenges would address bashing anyway. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2015 - 11:30 |
|
Well I've discussed it with you before a few times. However the way I think it should go is divisional in some way. Maybe like Faction a bit but with more levels and interaction between different levels. So teams that win move up levels, teams that lose move down levels. If teams play each other outside of their level, the lower team gets some form on inducement.
To encourage teams to move up levels, there could be an award system; like a lot of the modern games offer. "Chaos level 4" "3 rosters level 4" etc.
Whether this system should be totally open to see for the coaches......I don't know. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2015 - 13:21 |
|
| plasmoid wrote: | | Box isn't challenge. |
Which is my point exactly.
| Quote: | | You could call it "extremely short scheduled". |
No, it's not. It's not "scheduled" at all. It's a scheduler, but the specific example of "scheduled" in CRP refers to the FA Football League. It also says
"Any coach can enter the play-offs, but must
agree to play matches to a schedule set by the League
Commissioner. The commissioner must work out a schedule of
matches..."
which strongly suggests prior planning rather than on-the-fly scheduling.
| Quote: | | But the only thing in the rules about what a challenge actually is, says that it is a problem that the challenge system can be abused to prevent a team from playing anyone. |
No, it says the challenge system is there to prevent such abuse.
| Quote: | | The Box scheduler can't do that. |
Nor can it turn down a game, or give schedules. There is nothing in CRP which suggests an unscheduled environment where you cannot reject a game.
| Christer wrote: | | the R LFG tool is a partial challenge system |
I see it as a scheduling system (as opposed to a scheduled system) which does not have the ability to issue a "Written Challenge", a "Written Challenge" being a match where the player must positively accept or reject the challenge, with the consequences as per CRP. R's scheduler has passive rejection as opposed to the positive rejection a "Written Challenge" would require. I see them as different things.
Before I get jumped on by everyone, I have no idea what the technical difficulties would be to manage adding a challenge system as per CRP (particularly with the substitute rules), and fully respect the decision not to add it. |
|
|
cdassak
Joined: Oct 23, 2013
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2015 - 13:27 |
|
| cdassak wrote: | | dode74 wrote: |
Really, really stepping away now... |
I dont believe you |
I knew it! |
_________________
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2015 - 13:28 |
|
I was quite happy until plasmoid insisted on replying well after it had died down  |
|
|
|
|
| |
Elf Draft Coach
Search
