licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
 Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 16:40 |
 
|
| dode74 wrote: |
licker - "games played" is not the metric. You're making shit up as far as that goes, and cherrypicking to boot. Implementation of it might be "troubling" to you but, and I want to make this entirely clear: it's not your decision. It's Cyanide's.
|
It's not your metric, someone else asked about it though.
Still, do you not see the value in getting the feedback from the people with lots of games played in the environment you are looking to change? I'm not even saying it should be ME, I'm saying it appears there was no effort from cyanide to conduct a poll or engage in a dialogue with the actual players.
Maybe I'm wrong about that and you can point me to the poll or the discussions.
And of course, I know it's not my decision. I know it's cyanides decision. That by itself is frankly troubling don't you think? It's not as though their track record is exactly stellar, you say so your self, you have explained what they initially wanted to do with Khorne and how that was prevented.
You even are on record saying we will not get TV++ we will get whatever cyanide implementation of TV++ they decide on. So really why should anyone be excited for this as it specifically will be implemented?
Wait and see is good and all, but this process has been very poorly handled. Well that's cyanide for ya.
*shrug* |
|
|
happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 16:44 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | happygrue - you're arguing around that same buoy again. If a wizard is enough to give a win then the zSum difference will drop! |
The only reason I keep arguing the same thing over and over is you have yet to counter it in any way - meaningful or not. 
My point is that the zSum numbers that give one player a wiz are probably going to be a bit off most of the time anyway. So giving one player a wiz and thus "moving zSum again" may not move it in the "right" direction at all. There could be constant flip flopping around a point +/- 5 zSum, which is *big* in game terms but relatively meaningless in terms of the way zSum *could* aim to make games more fair.
I will reiterate my argument again and we can see how you ignore it this time: zSum is going to be constantly catching up to what a fair match should have been a while ago - but in reality the teams change so fast that it will never actually be measuring anything "fair" and the noise would drown out any possible gains of such a system.
P.S. it will also be hated while it's busy not doing a good job.
EDIT: The P.S. is a cheap shot and I apologize - I'm not big on editing out stuff once I've posted it so I'll leave it in. You have a theory, dode, I disagree. We won't move opinion until we see it play out, so I'll retire from this thread and let it get sorted out somewhere far away from here in a place I don't really care about anyway. Feel free to message me with "I told you so" if it all works out like you are hoping. 
Have fun! |
_________________
Come join us in #metabox, the Discord channel for HLP, ARR, and E.L.F. in the box!
 |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 16:51 |
|
You really don't get why it is brought up do you. Win percentages show a game where skill matters to at least some degree if there is a wide spread and one's last result has no baring on the next. That it is opposition to a system where long term skill is irrelevent to ones chances in a specific match when if TVplus works properly it's irrlevent. It has bugger all to do with what you say we mean by win %. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 16:56 |
|
| JohnnyFeyev wrote: | | Can we please just leave the game alone if this is the only option? I'm so sick of where society in general is heading that we have to lower our standards to the lowest common denominator instead of raising them to achieve the greater standard. You only get good at Blood Bowl by getting beaten, sometimes destroyed. That's freaking life. The game already has an equalizer built in with the RNG. Why can't people see that the great coaches are the ones that can deal with getting diced and applaud them for it? Who are we trying to sell this horrible idea that everything should be fair to? The garbage players who will probably quit anyway when they get beat by someone who is better? Most of us that are active in the community have paid our dues. We got destroyed when we started, and we got better. Those that are passionate about the game sit around discussing the game, researching the game, experimenting with the game. We choose to become better. We don't want/need someone to tell us what is fair. Because fair seems to be favoring the garbage coaches. You will never learn how to get good at something until you lose consistently and learn from your mistakes. I am so sick of the everyone gets a participation ribbon, we don't keep score because we want everyone to feel like a winner mentality. There are good players and garbage players. There is nobody that thinks a garbage player should ever be able to beat a great player without the great player getting completely shanked by the dice. That would be like me being able to step into the ring with Mike Tyson thinking I have a reasonable shot at beating him. That's ridiculous! Just leave the game along, fix the matchmaking TV differential thing, and be done with it. |
Some of my best BB lessions learned came in big losses to better coaches. Not lessons I would have got with 6 wizards 7 Morgs and a bribe to account for our skill differences. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 16:58 |
|
licker - Someone else may have asked, but the irrelevance is still there. It's the same nonsense some people use here when they brush people off with "well you've only played X games" as if that somehow imbues them with ultimate authority. It doesn't. Even if it did, the easy answer is that they also consulted with Enarion, who has 188 games played in COL and time spent as a consultant on LE. You appear to have 21 games in COL. So even by that nonsense selected metric they did consult with someone with "lots of games played". Now I'm not claiming to be the ultimate authority on these things, nor have I ever, but they came to me for my opinion, probably due to the large amount of time I spent running FOL - that probably gives a pretty damned good insight into the issues with such leagues, too.
Their track record of making decisions on their own is poor. When making more community-guided decisions (and not just from me - ageing is a very public example) it is invariably better than they would have come up with alone.
| Quote: | | You even are on record saying we will not get TV++ we will get whatever cyanide implementation of TV++ they decide on. So really why should anyone be excited for this as it specifically will be implemented? |
Woop - gaolpost shift! We're discussing TV++, not CyaTV++. I am interested to see what they eventually come up with and am fairly certain it will not be as it should be, but am not excited by it and do not have an opinion on it because I don't know what it will be. What we are discussing here, though, is TV++, and that is all we can discuss until we know what CyaTV++ turns out to be. If you want to talk about the actual implementation then I suggest you wait until it gets released.
I'd agree the process has been poorly handled. It could be done much, much better by having a test league, but that is the case with so, so many of the things they have imposed on people. I suggested that to them waaaay back in the pre-alpha stages in 2013, but it fell on deaf ears. There are other factors for them, though, one of the major ones being money. At the very least we should be grateful they are trying new things, even if they are not the new things we might, as individuals, want. It's not as if there aren't other places to play the game. |
|
|
JohnnyFeyev
Joined: Apr 03, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 17:05 |
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: |
Some of my best BB lessions learned came in big losses to better coaches. Not lessons I would have got with 6 wizards 7 Morgs and a bribe to account for our skill differences. |
Exactly my point. Thank you. This is how I picture this is going to work: Garbage player starts playing the game. After 50 matches he's won some, he's lost some. He thinks he's pretty good now, so he decides to expand his horizons and finds his way over to FUMBBL. All of a sudden, he doesn't have 2 wizards and 3 extra rerolls and can't understand why he's getting his butt handed to him. I mean, he had a pretty good win record in BB2, why doesn't it translate to FUMBBL? After a year or so playing FUMBBL, he figure out not to rely on inducements to win games and he figures out what he's doing. He goes back to BB2 and bitches about some other garbage player beating him because his opponent got 3 star players and a wizard. And the circle is closed. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 17:08 |
|
happygrue - I've countered it. You just don't like or agree with the answer. That's fine, but that doesn't make it suddenly not a counter.
Yes, all the zSum numbers are going to be off a bit. The multiplier, currently set at 50, doesn't matter all that much, and the size of it will effect only two things: the granularity of zSum and the speed at which you will reach your zSum. The larger it is the faster you get there but the less granular the overall results. It's a VERY simple thing for them to change the multiplier, but it's a balance of games played by a team over accuracy of the system. The median number of games played by a team is 5 in B, for example, which means a fast acting zSum is desirable. It might be that the median in COL is very different (I doubt it), so a smaller number might be appropriate in order to get that granularity. It basically comes down to what you want to do with it.
I thank you for your edit, btw - most honourable. I don't do "I told you so" but I will be content to say I am wrong if they drop the zSum bit entirely and go back to TV.
Matthueycamo - there you go: you don't get the paradigm shift. I totally understand why win% means something in the way MM/B is set up now, of course. It doesn't under TV++, though, and that's why it takes a different way of thinking about it. To paraphrase you: "zSums show a game where skill matters to at least some degree if there is a wide spread". The "and one's last result has no baring [sic] on the next" bit makes no sense. Your results have a bearing on who you play next in scheduled leagues (with promotion/relegation) and in tournaments (KO and Swiss), and if skill is involved in those then that last part does not apply. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 17:18 |
|
I've edited some language, please keep it clean. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 17:35 |
|
To be fair, I've deleted several teams, you can't look at my coach totals though I guess, but I've played well over 100 games (can't check specifically from here).
You can look at the levels too, even if they cap at 20 for some reason, clearly I've played more than those 21 games.
But I'm glad to hear that someone else was brought into the discussion.
However, as I pointed out on the cyanide forums, we can't discuss anything OTHER than TV++ as presented by Mike. And enough people are telling you that it will not accomplish what you think it will, and/or that it's simply a bad system that no one seems to have asked for.
That what we will get will (likely) be WORSE just means TV++ is going to get that much worse of a reputation.
This really has never been about TV++ by itself. By itself TV++ will do exactly what it says it will do, that's incontrovertible. The issue is who actually wants that? And, will it actually increase the number of players playing?
The goal was to get more games played in COL right? |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 17:55 |
|
I know we can't discuss anything other than TV++. Which was my point. Why did you ask the question about "really why should anyone be excited for this as it specifically will be implemented?" then?
| Quote: | The issue is who actually wants that? And, will it actually increase the number of players playing?
The goal was to get more games played in COL right? |
To answer your questions:
- Cyanide.
- I suspect so, mainly because it will prevent newer players from being disencouraged through constantly losing to you, me or anyone else who has a vague idea what they are doing. Old players who don't like it have plenty of places to play.
- No. It was to improve the matchmaking, but getting more games played is probably indicative of that. More games completed is probably a better indicator. That's a whole other discussion, ofc |
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 20:47 |
|
Hi guys,
Just a thought inspired by hearthstone:
To improve granularity and still retain some speed: How about changing the modifier to +/-30, but double it whenever a win is 3rd (or later) in a winning streak.
Not that this will reach Mike or Cyanide... |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 21:17 |
|
The rhetorical question was rhetorical 
We basically know we're going to get something other than what TV++ should look like. You and Mike both know that if TV++ is only partially implemented it will not be able to accomplish it's goal.
The concern then is that this just adds more fuel to the hater fire, and no matter how right you may be in saying that cyaTV++ needs more work to make it real TV++, the damage will have been done. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 21:23 |
|
Yeah, I've been thinking of something to improve granularity while trying to still allow the system to get you to where you "should" be. I believe Hearthstone doesn't have an issue with low game numbers, so they can afford to be as granular as they like from the off. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 21:25 |
|
| licker wrote: | The rhetorical question was rhetorical
We basically know we're going to get something other than what TV++ should look like. You and Mike both know that if TV++ is only partially implemented it will not be able to accomplish it's goal.
The concern then is that this just adds more fuel to the hater fire, and no matter how right you may be in saying that cyaTV++ needs more work to make it real TV++, the damage will have been done. |
I believe we've found a point of complete agreement
If CyaTV++ fails then the pitchforks will be out for TV++ regardless. It's going to take either pre-emptive information or a serious rearguard action to convince people otherwise. And people with pitchforks take a hell of a lot of convincing! |
|
|
mattwakeman
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2016 - 22:21 |
|
The more I think about TV++ the more it makes sense for Cyanide to try. It wouldn't work here at Fummbl but for people who have picked up the game without (probably) ever playing or being aware that it existed as a miniature based table-top game, the last thing that Cyanide would want is somebody to not really know what they are doing and end up swimming with sharks.
I think that they will mess it up, but I can see why they want it. If I think of it as something aimed at new or really casual players then it makes perfect sense. Get enough people playing and meta-reasons can be bolted on and then enough people will want to make the transition into league. |
|
|
|
|
| |
All Star Bowl!
Search
