morehouse
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
 Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:27 |
 
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:31 |
|
Pac, this is the reasoning behind my request for a ts pairinig:
I don't need data. My position is taken on principle:
I don't think we need a Coach rating in the matching formula. At all. My idea of the Blackbox is a formula that pairs TEAMS on a strenght basis.
Any formula preventing a CR 180 coach facing a CR 130 coach with EVEN teams is wrong to my idea of Blackbox.
Christer has a different idea of Blackbox, an idea I (and others) don't find very "Blackbox-esque". That's why I ask him to work on his "fair games" project in R, and give us a pure (and true) blackbox system.
I hope this is clear enough.
I'm enjoying my DivB experience so far. A lot. You can see I played 15 games in the last 10 days, and only 3 in the past months... this should tell you I'm not spitting on DivB as it is now.
But still, I'm creating this petition when we're still in Alpha phase because I dissent with the principles used, and not on anything technical or concerning math.
Principles should be discussed *FIRST*, that's why this petition exists *now*.
See my point? |
_________________
Last edited by JanMattys on %b %19, %2008 - %16:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
Freppa
Joined: Oct 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:32 |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:34 |
|
@pac:
While things are not settled in, you have the best chance to change them. When things are fixed, you always have a way harder time to get change. Once things are set, they are often set in stone. So form things while they are still formable. For alot of the problems you don`t need to be a prophet to see them. I wasn`t the only one that was foreseeing (with dislike) a basher-only division that will die because eventually bashers will get tired of playing against the same amount of bashers as in [R]. So far I have been proven wrong, that`s why I let it rest. But the TS-balance problem is already there. There are enough coaches that are tired of constant upstruggle and rather return to [R]. The adjustment of the TS gap has delayed and smoothed the problem. People don`t rump up to ridiculous matchups, because they are stopped way earlier, but they still will keep playing up a significant amount (10%+) in TS, just later and having played up for a longer time before. Because that`s how the math works.
So why on earth should we wait until the formula is deemed final before we ralley for change? |
Last edited by CircularLogic on %b %19, %2008 - %16:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
WG|Dark_Angel
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:36 |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
/signed (sort of)
though i think you have them the wrong way round in your proposal Jan. R should get the balanced matches, based soley on TR. After all CR takes the relative value of opponents into accoutn so it seems to fit there. Whereas [B] should specialised in balanced, 50% win probability, games.
That would make more sense to me. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:42 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | Principles should be discussed *FIRST*, that's why this petition exists *now*.
See my point? |
Thank you. This is exactly what you needed to put in your top post to make it clear what you were arguing for, rather than only addressing those who are already in the know. This is what I was getting at above when I suggested that making a case too hastily tends to undermine it. 
I still think you're taking up too extreme a position too quickly. What if, for example, with a change of weight to the factors, even the highest-rated coach was only playing up 5 TS on average against the lowest-rated coach? Given that TS-only match-ups would never be exact anyway, that would be virtually indistinguishable from your ideal situation.
| CircularLogic wrote: | | So why on earth should we wait until the formula is deemed final before we ralley for change? |
Because everyone's position has already been made quite clear. Many people would like coach ranking to play a much weaker role, or no role at all, and that has been clearly stated. It's also been stated that the formula will be adjusted. Perhaps those adjustments will not be sufficient to satisfy you: but that remains to be seen. |
Last edited by pac on %b %19, %2008 - %16:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:46 |
|
1- I'll edit the top post because you make sense. Thanks for that.
2- If Christer makes the BR impact so low as to make it virtually indistinguishable from my ideal situation, of course I'd be virtually indistinguishable from being happy  . But then, if the formula used was virtually indistinguishable from a formula with no BR at all, then he could save himself a lot of time and simply work on a easier formula based only on TS, couldn't he?  |
_________________
Last edited by JanMattys on %b %19, %2008 - %16:%Nov; edited 2 times in total |
|
f0rd
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:50 |
|
/signed |
_________________
Chuck Norris can divide by zero. |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:53 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | | But then, if the formula used was virtually indistinguishable from a formula with no BR at all, then he could save himself a lot of time and simply work on a easier formula based only on TS, couldn't he? |
Well, the ideal situation is that - as long as the BR impact, while small, is still there on paper - those who want BR to have an effect (about 25%, judging from the other poll) could also potentially be kept happy. The beauty of compromise! |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 16:57 |
|
| pac wrote: | | CircularLogic wrote: | | So why on earth should we wait until the formula is deemed final before we ralley for change? |
Because everyone's position has already been made quite clear. Many people would like coach ranking to play a much weaker role, or no role at all, and that has been clearly stated. It's also been stated that the formula will be adjusted. Perhaps those adjustments will not be sufficient to satisfy you: but that remains to be seen. |
I don`t think we would make this if Christer hasn`t stated, that a BR adjustment is what he has in mind. So the chance that the change we`d like to see is happening without us pushing is pretty much non-existant. |
|
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 17:00 |
|
~SIGNED & SIGNED~ |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley |
|
Melmoth
Joined: May 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 17:08 |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 17:20 |
|
/signed |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Satans_mechanic
Joined: Jul 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 17:21 |
|
I'm more in favour of Purplechests suggested method, it seems to fit bitter with Christers stated vision as I understand it. So it's sort of a half signature... /sig ? |
_________________
I'm in your dugout, spiking the bugmans. |
|
|
|
| |
All Star Bowl!
Search
