funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
 Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 16:13 |
 
|
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 16:15 |
|
FYI - Only reason I tied was because the other coach played extremely poorly in his insistance on scoring with a Bull Centaur. So I really would have lost this match. |
|
|
avien
Joined: May 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 16:23 |
|
Some days you're the bug and some days the windscreen.  |
_________________
 |
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
Well..
My initial reaction is: You managed 1-1. It can't have been that bad.
That aside, it's a rough match for sure. I'd be interested in the suitability score (@xxx value in the IRC) of that game if you have it.
The thing is that the scheduler is a tricky beast. Basically it tries to maximise the sum of the suitability score for the group of coaches who activated. I will go out on a limb and make the assumption that the scheduler chose between two variants of the pairings:
1. The pairings that were chosen in this case, giving you the tough opponent
or
2. Not pairing you at all, making the suitability of the other coaches slightly higher on average, but making the total sum of suitabilities lower than in the first case.
Given the way that the scheduler tries to optimise the total sum of the suitability score, it will always pick the first case as it works now. This results in a situation where certain matches such as yours will end up having to be played. Given that the suitability score is often fairly high, it results in the scheduler trying to pair as many participants as possible at any given time.
I am currently reading a paper that may allow me to improve the scheduler slightly, making sure it generates a "stable" schedule if one exists (meaning that no coach pair would "prefer" (ie, higher suitability) eachother over their selected opponents) which is known to happen at times with the current scheduler. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 16:34 |
|
Just out of interest funnyfingers, how many teams did you activate when you got this match up? |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=2730101
Have to say i was not happy with that match up.
My 158/150 ORcs v his 204/171 Ogres.
Id never take that game in R. He got the chaisaw running, did 2 BH and an SI (apoth fail) by turn 3 and depressed me into my first concession in ages.
And i didnt feel the remotest bit sorry.
Terrible match-up, and i consider the 930 suitability score it got a 'little' optimistic.
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=2710561
had that earlier. Which i may have fluked the win in, but it didnt feel fair. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 16:51 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | Just out of interest funnyfingers, how many teams did you activate when you got this match up? |
Just one. I really like playing with the goblins. I do not mind the matchup. Just thought I would throw it out there. I do love that I tied against what is probably one of the worst matchups there can be:)
Also you do see a tie, but like I said the coach was bent on scoring with his Centaur in the rain and left his 4 ag guy in the background somewhat. So he basically was the cat and I was the mouse, he just was unlucky. |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 17:14 |
|
It's evident that activating a single team decrease the draw, but the one having the most chances to get a stupid matchup is the coach activating his single team.
Now that beeing said, Purple's matchup is especially stupid. I really hate that handicap thing that makes it possible.
Indeed I find it especially problematic with ogres. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
clarkin
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 17:16 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=2730101
Have to say i was not happy with that match up.
My 158/150 ORcs v his 204/171 Ogres.
Id never take that game in R. He got the chaisaw running, did 2 BH and an SI (apoth fail) by turn 3 and depressed me into my first concession in ages.
And i didnt feel the remotest bit sorry.
Terrible match-up, and i consider the 930 suitability score it got a 'little' optimistic. |
Saw that one yesterday, a game I'd have hated to have to play too.
Maybe the suitability score should be lowered for games with 2+ handicaps to discourage them? I find those games are almost always the worst kind. |
|
|
maysrill
Joined: Dec 29, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 17:23 |
|
Christer, is it possible to maybe favor "no match" over "awful matchup"? I know I'm fairly new to playing [B], but I've already been on both sides of matches that I think would have been better off not being played.
Rookie dwarfs and rookie amazons? If a first-time player offered me this match I'd take the time to give him a little talking to about what zons should and shouldn't be trying to play. I was embarrassed to play this matchup and my opponent needed a new team afterward. I'd have been ok with sitting on the sidelines if this was all the scheduler could manage.
Maybe playing too much [R] has narrowed my view of what an even match is, but I think [B] might be too liberal. The [B] motto ought to be something along the lines of "fair matches, no haggling", rather than "suck it up, we got you a game, didn't we?" |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 17:33 |
|
I have been thrown a few interesting matches, but I have quite enjoyed them, even though some have been quite tough;
A Win 31 TS for my opponent (Before Handicaps) http://www.fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=2467675
A Loss 32 TS in my favour (Before Handicaps) http://www.fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=2682057
I found these games to be different from the ones that I would play in Ranked, but enjoyable none the less.
I think as has been shown already in this thread (hence my question), this match up comes from a coach only activating one team, so there is a choice there for us all, activate one team and take the risk, or have many teams and get a fairer game, albeit not with your race of choice. |
|
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 17:35 |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| maysrill wrote: | | Christer, is it possible to maybe favor "no match" over "awful matchup"? (...) The [B] motto ought to be something along the lines of "fair matches, no haggling", rather than "suck it up, we got you a game, didn't we?" |
Please define "fair matches" for me. |
|
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 17:53 |
|
That is still a very reasonable match anyway. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 23, 2009 - 18:01 |
|
Handicaps are one factor that is extremely hard to balance. I would include an additional cutoff, that says 'no matches of teams with a TS-dif > 15 before handicaps'.
Further, I would set the TS difference to 8% of the lower TS. That might shift the number of matches towards the higher TS, but I feel that would be an improvement. |
|
|
|
|
Vamps win another ma...
Search
