gandresch
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Feb 19, 2004 - 18:59 |
|
We are trying to make our own strength-calculation, based on the rules of fumbbl.com. We calculated several team-strength manualy and discovered differences to the fumbbl calculation. To trace the error down and give you a clean, reproducable example, we would like to eliminate all missunderstandings. Exact values are used through the whole calculation, or is the AverageAV - 8 + PlayerCount, which is looked up in the weight table truncated instead of rounded normaly, before the lookup?
Thank you. |
|
|
gandresch
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Feb 19, 2004 - 20:25 |
|
Hi again!
Here is an example for a wrong calculation. Therefor i used a new Orc Team, which is supposed to have TR100 and ST100, but the ST should be 101, which you'll see after the calculation:
new Orc Team ( http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=58564 )
1 Thrower
4 Blitzer
4 BlackOrcs
2 Lineman
2 RR à 60k
7 FF
no Apo
Calculation:
Base Strength = 7 (FF) + 2*(60.000/10.000) = 7 + 12 = 19
Player Strength:
Thrower:
strength = 5 (base) - 1 (ma) + 0 (st) + 0 (ag) + 0 (av) + 1 (pass) + 2 (sure hands) + 0,5 (sure hands cumulative) = 7,5
multiplier = 1 (no NI ...)
Blitzer:
strength = 5 (base) + 0 (ma) + 0 (st) + 0 (ag) + 1 (av) + 2 (block) = 8
multiplier = 1
(this values are used 4 times)
BlackOrc:
strength = 5 (base) - 2 (ma) + 6 (st) - 2 (ag) + 1 (av) = 8
multiplier = 1
(again, 4 times)
Lineman:
strength = 5 (base) - 1 (ma) + 0 (st) + 0 (ag) + 1 (av) = 5
multiplier = 1
(2 times)
TotalPlayerStrength = 81,5 = 1 * 7,5 (thrower) + 4 * 8 (blitzer) + 4 * 8 (blackorc) + 2 * 5 (lineman)
PlayerCount = 11 (sum of all multipliers)
AverageAV = 8,909 = (8 (av-thrower) + 4 * 9 (av-blitzer) + 4 * 9 (av-blackorc) + 2 * 9 (av-lineman)) / 11 (playercount)
(AverageAV - 8) + PlayerCount = 11,909
that makes weight = 1,0 (see weight table)
TeamStrength = 100,5 = 81,5 (total player strength) * 1,0 (weight) + 19 (base strength)
From the other calculations, we saw that ,5 to ,9 is rounded up, so that the TeamStrength should be 101 and not 100. To see the wrong calculation follow the link above.
gandresch |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
Right.. I looked it up.
The problem is that the strength explained page isn't exactly 100% accurate at one step:
Quote: |
(AverageAV - + PlayerCount = 11,909
that makes weight = 1,0 (see weight table)
|
Just to put it straight, the value here is 11,90909090... I'm sure you got that as well, so this is mainly a minor note.
However.. What the strength formula page doesn't say is that it uses linear interpolation to find the weight. In this particular instance, it ends up as 0.9990909090...
This leads to a strength value of ~100.426 which is rounded to 100 according to normal rounding rules. |
|
|
gandresch
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
Posted:
Feb 20, 2004 - 01:55 |
|
hi everybody, hi (hi especially) Christer!
Linear interpolation !
That's something i should have thought about. Thank you a lot, you really helped me to sleep well (good dreams inclusive).
gandresch |
|
|
ClayInfinity
Joined: Aug 15, 2003
|
  Posted:
Feb 20, 2004 - 02:04 |
|
You people should really get out more...
|
|
|
Jahira
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Feb 20, 2004 - 02:28 |
|
|
Wol
Joined: Jan 08, 2004
|
  Posted:
Feb 20, 2004 - 10:04 |
|
I've also seen some problems with the STR calculation of a new team when you remove and then add players again.
I've created a dark elf team, then cleaned it entirely, removing all players, rerolls, apoth and leaving only 1 FF. The STR was 18 ...
I've added 4 linemen (Dark elf) and the STR was down to 17.
The team STR is recalculated when you submit a team for approval, so the new approved team should have a correct STR, but this comes as quite a surprise when your STR goes down by 10-20 points when submitting the team.
This is a quick example, I could give more detailed one if needed, with all the info to reproduce the problem. |
|
|
Tedage
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Feb 20, 2004 - 10:53 |
|
stop whinging, be grateful theres a str calculation and 99.9% of the time im sure its bang on the mark. |
|
|
|
| |