Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
 Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 18:30 |
 
|
Isn't that the direct result of how the scheduler works?...
Matchmaking on TV and racial factors. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 18:43 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | Woodstock wrote: | | So you basically want to play [L]eague? |
Thank GOD for you woodstock  |
/cheer |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 18:44 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | What has not been answered is did you guys really intend for 95% of your games to take place within 150TV of each other, for over 50% of your games to be so closely matched by TV that even Babes can't be taken? There has been talk of fair etc from Garion, but that's not the question I asked since equal TV is not the same as a fair match (as he and I have shown). |
"you guys"?
Um, if by "you guys" you mean Christer, the man who runs the site (and his little helpers), then I guess the answer is yes.
Like it? |
Last edited by pythrr on %b %10, %2011 - %19:%Oct; edited 1 time in total |
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 19:01 |
|
Personally, I think it would be prudent to consider the effects of changes to house rules if there is consideration going on regarding the base rules, as was implied in Christer's blog. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 19:31 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | Um, if by "you guys" you mean Christer, the man who runs the site (and his little helpers), then I guess the answer is yes.
Like it? |
I had no idea you spoke for Christer. If it is his intent then of course I am fine with it - CRP page 24 says so 
Do you speak for Christer? Or is it the case that:
| pythrr wrote: | | this thread is troll-heavy. |
http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=484163#484163 |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 20:00 |
|
Good lord!
8 pages in less than a day?! On this topic again?! You crazy (jobless?) kids.  I'm never going to have time to enjoy all that!
I doubt I've anything to add on the subject that I've not ranted about before, or that hasn't come up in previous threads of this nature.
In short; 15%, TV based matchmaking, hurrah, other ways of doing it, not as good, for all kinds of reasons. Status quo = democracy, not ideal, but the best we'll do. The longer version of that can be found in my blog - but I doubt it's worth reading more than those few words!
Now, carry on, this is like the good old days! |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 20:16 |
|
no, the good old days would be where i locked the thread then everyone decided to crucify me for making forum users follow the rules....
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 20:17 |
|
Hehe - it had / has all the hallmarks of a perfectly lockable thread, doesn't it?
Won't be the last time this comes up either. Perhaps it's time for a fouling thread? Stalling? |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 20:36 |
|
@ Purplegoo
Thank you for pointing out your blog - most interesting, and I read your reasons, but (unsurprisingly) I disagree.
i) is an argument from ridicule combined with a slippery slope. Who said Morg every game? Once in a while would be nice though! Currently TV differences where Morg could be induced happen 0.16% of the time. TV differences where any star 200k+ could be induced (32 of the 56) happen 1.7% of the time.
ii) ridicules inducements and talks about the difference not being the equivalent of adding a player such as a BOB, but that's precisely what stars are - skilled players which, used correctly, make a difference. All of those players are overpriced, but many are very useful in the right situation.
iii) inducements aren't meant to make it 50/50. Understanding that is part of the enjoyment, and overcoming an overdog is at least as rewarding as an even match.
Minmaxing would be affected by increasing the range (and therefore variety) at which minmaxed teams can play. Of course there will still be minmaxing - nobody has denied that - but there will also be variety within a wider band.
All of which is based on the assumption that equal TV is an equal matchup, which it isn't as I described back on page 3. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 20:41 |
|
| dode74 wrote: |
Minmaxing would be affected by increasing the range (and therefore variety) at which minmaxed teams can play. Of course there will still be minmaxing - nobody has denied that - but there will also be variety within a wider band.
|
You see, I don't even think Min-maxing is as prevelant as you seem to assume, I havent played against more than one min maxer in the last month and 10 days in the box. I think the bigger issue people have with the box is facing similar teams at high TVs in the Box. Too much CPOMB and no jiggery pockery with match making is going to change that really
and would movign the goal posts actually make min maxers any worse off? Or would they benefit even more from their wicked ways? I dont know but In theory they could do even better out of it. |
_________________
Last edited by Garion on %b %10, %2011 - %20:%Oct; edited 1 time in total |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 20:45 |
|
Well, disagreement is fine. I'm still pretty happy I'm right on the matchmaking score, well, very happy. The alternatives are just all too rubbish to think about - but it's a cycle I don't really want to get into, the fruitless interweb debate option doesn't float my boat tonight!
The 15% rule, specifically, goes further in the line of the picking / preying on newcomers score, as has been mentioned, and is very important in the online environment.
More than anything else, we've done this round a gazillion times - which is no help to an articulate newcomer, I know, but it wears a bit thin if you've seen it a bunch, as I'm sure you know well from 'the other place' (assuming the forum remained as awful as it was when I was having a brief look). Don't let my malaise put you off though; so many inches so quickly proves there are those willing to argue the toss again. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 20:58 |
|
@ Garion
| Quote: | | I think the bigger issue people have with the box is facing similar teams at high TVs in the Box. Too much CPOMB and no jiggery pockery with match making is going to change that really. |
You see, this is exactly what I am saying will change!
At high TV the most TV-efficient teams are those which take the skills which specialise and stack the best - CPOMB teams, particularly Chaos, do that as they have good stats to start with and can gain all the required skills on normal rolls, and those skills stack to increase the odds of the "killer" role being successful. Other teams with similar "bash" roles generally start out with slightly worse stats (dwarves and orcs are slower in general) but better skills (dwarves in particular). This means that they have less far to go to be at maximum efficiency at that particular role. For an Orc Blitzer killer-type it's just MB, PO and tackle - anything added to that is arguably bloat as it doesn't help him carry out his role better. Sure, he can take other "useful" skills, but none of them help him kill stuff once he's taken 60TV of skills. For a beastman there is block, MB, PO, claw and tackle - 100TV of skills with no inefficiency. Those teams able to take more skills will be more efficient as TV rises, and those who are forced (through skillups) to take sub-optimal skills become less so.
In order for teams to meet they generally need to be inside 150TV of each other. Given that Orcs will be very efficient at ~1800 and Chaos at ~2100+, I'm not surprised that there is little variety in matchmaking. Allow those 1800TV orcs to play the 2100+ TV chaos (taking apoths, babes etc) and your options - the variety - increases.
Will the min-maxers do better? I have no idea, but is fear a reason not to try to improve things? After all, it can always be changed back.
@ Purplegoo
There is (rightly) a lot of concern over picking on the newbies. It is still entirely possible to do so with a min-maxed low-TV team such as Dwarves and Norse - the same happens on Cyanide for the same reasons. Expanding the bracket would force those low-TV minmaxers to play higher TV teams (thereby protecting the newbies), and a games played based matching (as I mentioned in the OP) would help protect new teams.
I'm sure this has been done before, but if you (a general you, not you specifically Purplegoo) have read it before and don't want to read it again then nobody is chaining you to the monitor and forcing you to press the "read last post" key |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 20:59 |
|
How little you know. My missus loves to punish me.  |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 21:02 |
|
so the essential trend of this thread is...
"i want the site to change despite only playing 2 games here!!"
"um...this is why your changes are not conducive to building a healthy site"
"I don't care, your points are irrelevant!! do it now!"
hmm...sounds familiar...
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 21:08 |
|
Wow, total misread! (deliberate attempt at ridicule?)
I've not stated that you should change the site at all. I've asked if all the consequences of the 15% rule are intended. I got an answer from Smeesh, a partial answer/partial deflection from Garion, and a bit of a troll comment from pythrr.
Nobody has said anything about the changes being "unhealthy" for the site, just offered debate and opinion. I am allowed to respond to opinion with my own opinion, right? Debate is allowed here?
As I said waaaay back at the start of this, I'm more than happy to play as directed (CRP page 24). I am asking for information and exploring to see if there is a better option. If you don't want to take part then don't, or if you have relevant counterpoints then please make them, but slamming other people for actually taking an interest, even after a mere 2 games, doesn't seem conducive to building a healthy site |
|
|
|
|
| |
Finishing the 60 Gam...
Search
