JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
 Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 18:30 |
 
|
| PainState wrote: | Oh no..are you saying we will have another tweak about to show up to fix the last tweak that spawned perversities?
 |
The most important game design skill is the willingness to do this, to keep fixing your fixes. The final answer should be as simple as it can be while still being optimal, and no simpler. The last scheduler tweak seems to have solved one problem and caused another; a suitability shift for less-than-suitable games or a TV differential cap would not be onerous. In fact, on the user end it would be invisible.
Edit: Damn, page 50. My bad.  |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 18:40 |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 18:44 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | The new, tweak, will not guarantee that above 1700+ TV you will see it at a proportional %. Which will cause some coaches to "balk" at the idea that the Box has solved its CPOMB issues. |
I don't think anyone has said this is a form of a guarantee, nor that the result has to be at a "proportional %", and none of us has obviously seen this idea in practice yet. But just because it's not an outright miracle, doesn't mean it's not worth trying out?
Having over-represented races play each other a little more often than versus lesser played races, will probably help towards fixing two major downers in box right now: (1) the monotony and boredom of "always" playing versus same kind of team build/play style and (2) having your roster destroyed by suddenly playing a 5-game-streak versus teams exploiting a seriously flawed game dynamic.
I don't understand why you would argue against implementing this or something similar? |
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010 |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 18:50 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | PainState wrote: | | The new, tweak, will not guarantee that above 1700+ TV you will see it at a proportional %. Which will cause some coaches to "balk" at the idea that the Box has solved its CPOMB issues. |
I don't think anyone has said this is a form of a guarantee, and none of us has seen this idea in practice.
But having over-represented races play each other a little more often than versus lesser played races, will probably help towards fixing to major downers in box right now: (1) the monotony of always playing versus same kind of team build/play style and (2) having your roster destroyed by suddenly playing a 5-game-streak versus teams exploiting a seriously flawed game dynamic.
I don't understand why you would argue against implementing this or something similar? |
I'm all for that idea but the change won't actually make any difference unless the number of coaches playing there increases massively. All that will happen is you will still get drawn against the same high tv killers because the are pretty much the only races that play at that TV . The algorithm may make the match up less likely on paper but if they are the only match ups available you will still get drawn against them. |
_________________
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 18:50 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: |
I absolutely agree the thread has gone around and around in circles and is far too long, but is the best way to point that out by making the same post thrice over? 
(I jest, I assume there is some phone based reload / re-posting issue. If you don't mind, I'll mod out the other two / latter ones if it continues) |
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't just post the same thing over, and over, and over again?  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - 19th June! ---- All Star Bowl XII - Teams of Stars - Sign up NOW! |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 18:58 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | I'm all for that idea but the change won't actually make any difference unless the number of coaches playing there increases massively. |
It will make a difference with the current crop of coaches as well, but an increase of coaches is of course positive. And that is the very aim of this thread, as you seem to be forgetting. And this "massively" you speak of, you seem to have pulled out of thin air.
What happened to this Garion? Where did he go?
| Garion wrote: | | Seriously guys don't derail this again there are some good discussions going on here about a possible news letter on the previous page and the themed draws idea from the page before, and the meta tournament idea. Stay on target. |
|
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010 |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 19:00 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Are you suggesting that we shouldn't just post the same thing over, and over, and over again? |
|
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010 |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 19:13 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | I don't understand why you would argue against implementing this or something similar? |
Well I would like to think that we are discussing this issue and not arguing about it.
Iam not against any form of change in the Box. The big hurdle that the box faces is that the PERCEPTION of the Box is that it is flawed because of CPOMB. That perception drives coaches out of the DIV.
Now the hurdle any change that hits the Box needs to address is the #1 negative perception of CPOMB. If the common perception is that the new changes have changed up the dynamic where that coach feels CPOMB is no longer a serious issue in the Box. Then the Box has a chance to thrive with new coaches coming back to give it a shot.
The #1 positive of the Box is that a majority of the coaches like the idea of the scheduler.
The #1 negative of the box is CPOMB BUT that is a perception.
Right now the negative is clearing the pitch of the positives in the division. Because the scheduler needs to some how massively change the perception of the Box and that is a very tall order IMO. |
_________________
Comish of the: 
Last edited by PainState on %b %29, %2014 - %19:%Oct; edited 1 time in total |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 19:14 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | Garion wrote: | | I'm all for that idea but the change won't actually make any difference unless the number of coaches playing there increases massively. |
It will make a difference with the current crop of coaches as well, but an increase of coaches is of course positive. And that is the very aim of this thread, as you seem to be forgetting. And this "massively" you speak of, you seem to have pulled out of thin air.
What happened to this Garion? Where did he go?
| Garion wrote: | | Seriously guys don't derail this again there are some good discussions going on here about a possible news letter on the previous page and the themed draws idea from the page before, and the meta tournament idea. Stay on target. |
|
I am discussing it. I have just thought about it enough and I have come to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that none of the changes proposed will actually make any difference to how many high tv teams are cpomb. I honestly don't see how that idea will help with the current crop of coaches. If there are 4 teams on game finder 3 are cpomb and 1 is elf the elf team is still playing against that cpomb teams even though the algorithm has made it more unlikely to get drawn. The only way to get that new system to have any effect is if there are more coaches and more diversity out there at high tv already, but there just isn't. The only way to achieve that would be implement a system such as the one you suggested which would basically force people to play with a wider selection of races. But that has been vetoed and although I like it, the cpomb crowd do not, why, because they actually enjoy playing lots of cpomb and smashing teams to bits. Not criticising them, just pointing out that fact. |
_________________
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 19:23 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | Balle2000 wrote: | | I don't understand why you would argue against implementing this or something similar? |
Well I would like to think that we are discussing this issue and not arguing about it.
[...]
Iam not against any form of change in the Box. The big hurdle that the box faces is that the PERCEPTION of the Box is that it is flawed because of CPOMB. That perception drives coaches out of the DIV. |
| reference.com wrote: | ARGUE
verb (used without object), argued, arguing.
1. to present reasons for or against a thing:
He argued in favor of scheduler fixes and free sex with every 10th cup of coffee. |
If you intend to teach a Norwegian about English, make sure you know your stuff first (I might have altered the example sentence slightly)
I think the second part of your post is a good point. While CPOMB is also a tangible problem, a misconception some coaches have that blackbox is worse than radioactive testicular cancer, is certainly not helping.
I'll take this point on board. |
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010
Last edited by Balle2000 on %b %29, %2014 - %19:%Oct; edited 1 time in total |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 19:24 |
|
| PainState wrote: | Talking about High TV I think we need to be reminded of something.
This happens in the box and ranked.
The higher the TV of the teams that process starts dropping teams out of the equation. Some teams cannot get over 2000 TV. Some teams cannot reach the lofty realms of 2200 TV.
The higher up the TV ladder you climb the fewer and fewer types of teams will be around.
Which is why in both formats once you hit the high TV mark for those divs you usually only see 4-6 races battling it out.
So the idea of having diversity at high TV in Box or Ranked is fools gold. The way TV works eliminates diversity at that level.
|
Agreeing with Painstate in a thread? At least it isn't about a skill choice! |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 19:34 |
|
| Garion wrote: |
I am discussing it. I have just thought about it enough and I have come to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that none of the changes proposed will actually make any difference to how many high tv teams are cpomb.
[...]
If there are 4 teams on game finder 3 are cpomb and 1 is elf the elf team is still playing against that cpomb teams even though the algorithm has made it more unlikely to get drawn. |
So you have gone from being enthusiastic about trying out this suggestion, to having concluded that there is no possible changes within Christer's "framework" (if you like). That's a bit odd. But I'm interested in what made you change your opinion and come to this conclusion without testing the ideas at all?
And your numbers example is poor. If there are 2 over-played (currently cpomb) teams and 2 under-played teams in a draw, the scheduler will put a slight bias on pairing the two over-played ones.
I thought this was clear?
Example: Instead of cpomb-other & cpomb-other, you will slightly more often get cpomb-cpomb & other-other.
So it will have an impact also at minimum draws. But again, I agree that more coaches helps. |
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010 |
|
huff
Joined: Dec 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 19:53 |
|
@Pentalarc- Going back to your original post (yall may need to reread at this point), I had a similar idea, and I think that's because how we both enjoy the game. https://fumbbl.com/p/blog&c=huff&id=13429
As far as all else is concerned, imma jump in and just touch 'what's on the table' (for now?), because there isn't too much we could do by sticking with the current ruleset or im pretty confident it would have been done already.
I see the scheduled has gotten some tweaks to help protect rookie-rookieish teams from abusive minmaxing that's is made exploitable from TV based matchmaking, but I also think it has opened the doors to a couple other problems.
- The first being that there is no ceiling to which a game can be matched once past 30 games, and keep in mind that the Box IS a TV based matchmaking system, so I don't think a 150 TV should be able to be paired with a 220 TV team. One may argue for inducements and it's fine in league, but keep in mind that Box is TV based.
-The second problem is born out of the first with the no ceiling, and it was brought up yesterday but locked up before it got legs, and that is the premise coined as 'maxmaxing'. Where one could just do away with regarding TV and just max out on players ect to become some 240 TV giant and still get paired with a 150 TV team. Although this could bite them in the but when faced off against a well built 200 TV team, they will reap the rewards until then.
Just some thoughts, and I have a lot more as they built up this past year+. |
|
|
Dunenzed
Joined: Oct 28, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 20:16 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | PainState wrote: | Talking about High TV I think we need to be reminded of something.
This happens in the box and ranked.
The higher the TV of the teams that process starts dropping teams out of the equation. Some teams cannot get over 2000 TV. Some teams cannot reach the lofty realms of 2200 TV.
The higher up the TV ladder you climb the fewer and fewer types of teams will be around.
Which is why in both formats once you hit the high TV mark for those divs you usually only see 4-6 races battling it out.
So the idea of having diversity at high TV in Box or Ranked is fools gold. The way TV works eliminates diversity at that level.
|
Agreeing with Painstate in a thread? At least it isn't about a skill choice! |
Nifty. You guys can be "Wrong Buddies". Have another look at the graphs that Balle produced earlier in this thread. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2014 - 20:24 |
|
| huff wrote: | Where one could just do away with regarding TV and just max out on players ect to become some 240 TV giant and still get paired with a 150 TV team. Although this could bite them in the but when faced off against a well built 200 TV team, they will reap the rewards until then.
Just some thoughts, and I have a lot more as they built up this past year+. |
Well regarding maxmaxing, would you choose a wolf to tell you about improving your hen house. That coach has an extremely individual outlook on BB, and has a different sense of accountability.
On topic though, how is TV a better match maker than recent WDL record? I see no reason why it would be, and blackbox confirms to me my opinion. Most naysayers are those with great records. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Making Assassins mor...
Search
