FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Mar 16, 2016 - 20:54

dode74 wrote:

Some coaches disagree with that definition of fair, of course. People will always disagree. There are coaches who agree with it, too. Blind is one way of doing it and that's what we have at the moment. It's also one of the things we have the complaints about.

You didn't have complaints about it being 'blind' you had complaints about it being poorly implemented.

dode74 wrote:

I played plenty of chess in my youth as well, and that which is "patently false" for you is entirely true for me. I've already said I had a grandmaster at my school (he was grandmaster in the upper 6th, so his final year - he was one year ahead of me) and playing against him simply wasn't fun for either of us. He was wasting his time, I was effectively playing a different game. People will have varying views of that between mine and yours, but where I doubt we disagree is this: even matches are most often fun.

See, I don't really think in terms of what an 'even' match should be. Especially in chess. Since that's not really how any ladder or tournament system I ever played in worked. But Chess is clearly different as you can measure skill and you can (and they do) base matches off of that ranking. If you have a middle ranking for the pool you are in, and you play in swiss tournament (most common kind for chess) then you will tend to finish somewhere in the middle of the pack, as expected. But that doesn't mean that any individual match you had was unfair, or that you should have gotten or received a handicap to try and make all the matches 'even'.

If you did that for a chess tournament then clearly skill would be irrelevant and you might as well have just had everyone play a game of roshambo instead.

dode74 wrote:

With CCGs you're using one example of a place handicapping isn't use to show handicapping doesn't work, it seems, which is a non sequitur. Just because it's not used there does not mean it can't work here, nor does it mean it can't work there.

I didn't say anything about handicapping not working, I said NO ONE ASKS FOR IT. To the main point now, who is asking for BB to be handicapped? You said cyanide, I said I don't think they asked for that, they asked if TV++ would make more 'even' matches. But even there, where's the answer to my questions, who was bugging cyanide about the issues with COL? Did they have more data/complaints than what was simply going on on the forums?

dode74 wrote:

]And that's where the preconceptions come it. Same TV does not mean mechanically equivalent. We know this, the data supports it. That's not to say TV is a terrible matching method - that's why it's included in TV++ - it's just not very good compared with TV++.

Same TV means the teams have had the same amount of cash and or skills to develop with. That sounds pretty fair. Granted not all teams develop at the same rate, but, wow, isn't that part of the fun of it? Instead you want to not just remove skill you want to remove how teams naturally develop. Why should a rookie choas team have a 50% win expectation against rookie zons? Well you'll say TV++ won't have kicked in yet, but you're still getting these mechanical matches which you claim are not any fun for either coach.

dode74 wrote:

Pools don't address it sufficiently. If you're going to attempt to counter a point at least counter the point I am making.

Pools address it completely as far as I'm concerned. TV++ adds in additional fixes no one asked for, and TV++ doesn't address it directly either, as you will still have big TV mismatches, even you you'll say it's TV++ you should look at, but to most coaches they will just see their 1200 TV team getting paired with a 2000TV team that has a terrible zsum. Where is the fun in that?

dode74 wrote:

It does NOT remove the importance of skill from the game. You keep saying this and I keep saying why I disagree. We'll not agree on this one. It boggles me why you still think skill won't have any bearing on an even match.

Because we disagree on what even means. The match literally is not even, other than by your definition of win%. The match is completely uneven in terms of skills available and or inducements. The whole point of TV++ is to remove skill from the equation and create an even playing field where even the most inept coach has an equal chance to beat the best coach. How you can make that claim, and then claim that skill matters remains beyond me. How can skill matter if at some point all the matches are coin flips?

dode74 wrote:

We're going round in circles. Literally every point which has been made above has been mentioned before with each of us providing our opinion on why the other is wrong. That's fine, but it's getting a little repetitive now. I know what you're likely to say to every point above because it's all been said before, and I suspect the same is true for you; all either of us is doing is re-emphasising what has already been said. I'm content at this point that you have one opinion of how it will work and I have another - let's agree to disagree and see how it goes. They can always change it back. Assuming they implement it correctly in the first place...

True, but I don't mind Smile

I'd still like to have my questions about who actually wanted TV++ addressed, and with more than just 'cyanide'. Did they conduct a poll? Did they do a survey? Did you or Mike do these things?

Data is great, and it's admirable to look at the results of 1000s of matches. It's not so admirable to draw your own conclusions from that and impose them on a player base which wasn't consulted. Ok, that's more on cyanide than it is on you or Mike. In a sense you're just doing your job, they asked your opinion, you gave it.

I just don't see how any real effort was made to inquire if this fix addresses the real issues raised, or if this fix is desired to address them.

pythrr

Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Posted: Mar 16, 2016 - 21:17

i do not want to play tennis with my feet tied together just because my opponent is a retard who can't hit a forehand shot to save their own mother.

_________________

dode74

Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Posted: Mar 16, 2016 - 22:23

There are maybe three points in the above which we've not covered already ad nauseam.

Quote:

You didn't have complaints about it being 'blind' you had complaints about it being poorly implemented.

Perhaps I worded that bit ambiguously: the blind system is the one they had complaints about.

Quote:

Same TV means the teams have had the same amount of cash and or skills to develop with. That sounds pretty fair.

Fair meaning even chance? No. We know that some teams do better at certain TVs than others, so same TV does not mean even chance, and is therefore not fair by that definition.
It also doesn't mean the same amount of skills at all: skill rolls make a big difference, and are a die roll with long-term consequences. We've covered that bit before, of course...

Quote:

Pools address it completely as far as I'm concerned.

Well that's great for you, but the numbers show otherwise. Hell, B shows us otherwise.

Honestly, I'm done. There will be no convincing you and you won't convince me since we're actually both working from supposition. I'm going to wait and see how it works out, and what we actually end up with!

PainState

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Mar 16, 2016 - 23:07

pythrr wrote:

i do not want to play tennis with my feet tied together just because my opponent is a retard who can't hit a forehand shot to save their own mother.

What in the hell?

A glimpse into the life of pythrr, he plays tennis?

I always thought he was a golf type of guy.

_________________
Comish of the:

PainState

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Mar 16, 2016 - 23:10

Can I get the cliff note version of the last 3 pages of this thread, please?

_________________
Comish of the:

Strider84

Joined: Jun 03, 2009

Posted: Mar 16, 2016 - 23:15

dode:
TV++ is the holy grail, you all think winning makes you a good player but only TV++ makes your wins valuable because you finally have a 50 50 challenge which you need to master.

all others: if it's 50% 50% why do I even play, I'm a good BB player so I expect to win 70% of my games, because if I'm better than the other guy I want to win, not to only have a 50% chance for it because I'm better than him.

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Mar 16, 2016 - 23:21

dode74 wrote:

There are maybe three points in the above which we've not covered already ad nauseam.

Quote:

You didn't have complaints about it being 'blind' you had complaints about it being poorly implemented.

Perhaps I worded that bit ambiguously: the blind system is the one they had complaints about.

Quote:

Same TV means the teams have had the same amount of cash and or skills to develop with. That sounds pretty fair.

Fair meaning even chance? No. We know that some teams do better at certain TVs than others, so same TV does not mean even chance, and is therefore not fair by that definition.
It also doesn't mean the same amount of skills at all: skill rolls make a big difference, and are a die roll with long-term consequences. We've covered that bit before, of course...

Quote:

Pools address it completely as far as I'm concerned.

Well that's great for you, but the numbers show otherwise. Hell, B shows us otherwise.

Honestly, I'm done. There will be no convincing you and you won't convince me since we're actually both working from supposition. I'm going to wait and see how it works out, and what we actually end up with!

And you won't answer the only question I ever ask. Sad

But no, I'm not working from supposition, I'm working from logic. You tell me there is a system which 'adjusts' for coach skill by adding handicaps and I say then that skill doesn't matter since you're removing any advantage it might have given.

There's no supposition there, and the golf analogy actually applies perfectly.

You are the better golfer, I'm sure since I've never even picked up a club in my life. So I get a 100 stroke handicap (and that might not be enough). We play a round and I shoot a 210 while you shoot a 111.

I WIN!!!

That's pretty dumb by any measure isn't it? Do either of us actually think that's fair, or fun or even interesting? Did your far superior skill mean anything ultimately? Or was there just a handicap put in place to make the match result a coin flip?

Also are you sure B shows us otherwise? Or what exactly do you think B is showing us since the scheduler change? Where are endless complaint threads about unfair matchups? No, the issue with B is the perception (maybe reality) about high TV cpomb stupidity, and hence diversity, but that's not an MM issue.

Guess what TV++ doesn't address either.

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Mar 16, 2016 - 23:23

Strider84 wrote:

dode:
TV++ is the holy grail, you all think winning makes you a good player but only TV++ makes your wins valuable because you finally have a 50 50 challenge which you need to master.

all others: if it's 50% 50% why do I even play, I'm a good BB player so I expect my skill to matter if I'm better than the other guy I want to win, not to only have a 50% chance for it because the system is going to throw handicaps at me.

FTFY

Strider84

Joined: Jun 03, 2009

Posted: Mar 16, 2016 - 23:39

well skill matters as of if a rookie would play the game you're playing it would be 20% 80%

what I do agree with you is that the luck factor is too high compared to the "skill" performance variation, where I would say I play my b game I lose about 2% edge where luck is about 30% impact. this can somehow be normalized by not giving 50 TV per zsum but ,aybe 30, so only 5 "random" wins give your opponent a wiz.

I still don't get why your skill doesn't matter. In a normal game if you might have a 70 30 chance to win because of skill, so whter you win the 7 out of 10 games is still due to luck and if you only win 6 you feel cheated. how is this different to winning 50% an feeling cheated if you only win 4?

at the end you're just playing in a more difficult mode.

If I play my wife I also play with 7 vs 11 players because otherwise she would never play me so why would new players not want to start with that?

happygrue

Joined: Oct 15, 2010

Posted: Mar 16, 2016 - 23:44

Strider84 wrote:

dode:
TV++ is the holy grail, you all think winning makes you a good player but only TV++ makes your wins valuable because you finally have a 50 50 challenge which you need to master.

all others: if it's 50% 50% why do I even play, I'm a good BB player so I expect to win 70% of my games, because if I'm better than the other guy I want to win, not to only have a 50% chance for it because I'm better than him.

Not bad.

But I think there are two issues being debated, the winning issue is above. But the other:

dode: TV++ will create matches that are more fair, because both coaches will have close to the same chance to win.

all others: TV++ will create lots of problems on top of TV matchmaking, making incentives for various types of metagaming while keeping your overall win rate close to 50% no mater what you do. This is only "more fair" from a point of view that none of us share.

EDIT: This is actually why I never posting anything regarding your points Strider, as I read you dealing with the winning issue but I don't really care one way or another about that aspect of it - I'm worried about the incentives for other types of problems, not "how we're ranked".

_________________
Come join us in #metabox, the Discord channel for HLP, ARR, and E.L.F. in the box!

Last edited by happygrue on %b %16, %2016 - %23:%Mar; edited 1 time in total

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Mar 16, 2016 - 23:46

So in a normal game you win 70% of the time because you are more skilled.

Now, you have the same amount of skill but the game gives your opponent advantages until your win rate is only 50%.

So tell me again where the skill comes in? I'm not saying you'll play any differently than you normally would, indeed, I assume you'll play the best you can. Yet for all of that, you still only win 50% of the time, and only because your opponent has more skills or more inducements than you.

Where is there any skill involved now? You cannot play differently, you cannot improve any more you're just playing a game where you're handicapped into a 50% win rate no matter what.

Is that really something you want? To just face multiple star players, wizards, higher TV teams all the time? Are you really going to find it fun to just play a string of 10 games and finish 5/5 in them since that's what the system demands?

TV++ literally states that someone who plays completely randomly will eventually get enough inducements to where they will beat you 50% of the time.

And you think that's a good idea.

*shrug*

Strider84

Joined: Jun 03, 2009

Posted: Mar 17, 2016 - 00:03

well, I play table tennis on an amateur level. I start in the lowest league and win 80% of my games, I obviously want to play in a higher league next year. and I want to do that until I win about 50% of my matches.

I am aware skill can't be measured in BB, but also in TT not always the better player wins. so of course in a BB league environment we already have that covered. however, if I just want to play my one off game, I would be interesten in keeping or improving my zScore, so I'm fine with a 50% matchup, yes. because after all, I have my own expectation on how the game should go and consider the variance to that.

Where I want to play my 70 vs 30 edge is in tournaments or league where winner advances.

Even for the world cup it would be better imo, not because it is a better rating of skill necessarily, but because 20 0 0 would just be impossible and people would have to consider playing another game so the 5-20 games rule would actually make sense. now its just tie one game start over, what has that to do with skill?

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Mar 17, 2016 - 00:16

Strider84 wrote:

well, I play table tennis on an amateur level. I start in the lowest league and win 80% of my games, I obviously want to play in a higher league next year. and I want to do that until I win about 50% of my matches.

I am aware skill can't be measured in BB, but also in TT not always the better player wins. so of course in a BB league environment we already have that covered. however, if I just want to play my one off game, I would be interesten in keeping or improving my zScore, so I'm fine with a 50% matchup, yes. because after all, I have my own expectation on how the game should go and consider the variance to that.

Where I want to play my 70 vs 30 edge is in tournaments or league where winner advances.

Even for the world cup it would be better imo, not because it is a better rating of skill necessarily, but because 20 0 0 would just be impossible and people would have to consider playing another game so the 5-20 games rule would actually make sense. now its just tie one game start over, what has that to do with skill?

This is the crux of it!

While this whole TV++ is ill suited to the personalities that make up FUMBBL, it might be just right for the atmosphere of BB2.

WolfyDan

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Mar 17, 2016 - 00:27

I think that if this much time were spent fixing TV rather than inventing TV++ the game would be in a much better place.

Thinking about TV++ I don't think that it can work. It seems to me that the TV++ system addresses a situation where one coach (let's call him MoJanji) wins 70% of his games, and another coach (let's call him Gurplepoo) win 50% of his games. So MoJanji plays Gurplepoo and the latter gets a Wizamorg to make things even. Well that's fine, but just how did MoJanji get to 70% in the first place? If TV++ is in place and working correctly then MoJanji should never get to 70% beyond some early calibration. To establish the ++ of TV++ you need a player skill baseline that is destroyed as soon as you implement TV++.

In fact if TV++ is working correctly then all players should be having a 50% chance of winning or losing their game. Skill doesn't come into it because it is damped out by the TV++ system. Therefore all games will be 50-50. But if all games are the result of luck because skill is no longer a factor then your win percentage is no longer driven by skill but by the luck of previous results. Therefore TV++ will end up being a modifier based on your luck.

Actually thinking about it I kinda am warming up to it.

*all characters in this post are fictional, and any resemblance to blood bowl players sober or drunk is purely coincidental; apart from the Joemanji one.

Strider84

Joined: Jun 03, 2009

Posted: Mar 17, 2016 - 00:30

I completely agree, becauuse fummbl has better ways to car for coach differences lick 145 league and other metagroups. People that are new should expect to be beaten mostly the first 100-200 games if they just play box or get cherrypicked in ranked because the average level is pretty high.

However for cyanide if you can keep people for 100 games they might get hooked and stay with bb (on cyanide or on fumbbl) forever and that should be the maingoal, increase the player base.

there are still some issues which have to be handled seperately like greivers that just want to destroy teams and I'm not sure res would be the right solution. also the concession rate is very high in cyanide which is a joke. but then again can't blame not wanting to play against these teams, that might be handled with similar tv matching partially-

Hopefully if the rankings of the official T++ league would be the zsum and high TV chaos teams cannot easily get to the top as they might not get so many concessions it might help.

Best to let them try out in a single league to see how it goes.

And so it is said again, it does not matter if you end up at 50 50 after so or so many games, what matters if at what Zsum level you can maintain that 50 50 rate. This will then be the estimation of your skill level. Of course that estimation is still biased by the luck factor, that's why I promote lower scaling factors before tough inducements come in.

Last edited by Strider84 on %b %17, %2016 - %00:%Mar; edited 1 time in total