koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Sep 21, 2019 - 23:37 |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
  Posted:
Sep 22, 2019 - 15:37 |
|
I can't create coaches, otherwise I would play in my own league with my house rules and I would not bother to discuss with people unable (deliberately or not) to grasp that automatic MM is the best (least unfair, if you prefer) way to arrange games. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Sep 22, 2019 - 17:13 |
|
"Best" is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly, not enough people agree with you for Christer to delete the Ranked division or the Gamefinder.
As for "fairest"...
TV is not accurate enough to be certain of "fair".
Inducements don't fully compensate for differences in the already inaccurate TV.
The Box does not currently take coach skill into account.
It is one thing to prefer it, but that doesn't make it "best" or "fairest".
You don't need to have a massive number of coaches for a Box to "work". Pandora's Box worked well enough on stuntyleeg.com.
A Box on any league would be a great option. Especially as the commishes could just kick out anyone they considered to be an arse.
It all depends on the amount of effort. Different leagues would want different options. e.g. minimum number of teams in draw, rookie protection, max TV difference, probably more.
And, how may leagues would really use it. What else is on the list of things to be done. What is happening with the javascript port? etc. etc.
It is a similar issue to Seasons. If commishes cannot tweak the options then they may well be better off doing it manually. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 (big teams, progression) Swiss 9th Oct! --- All Star Bowl - recruiting NOW!! |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
  Posted:
Sep 22, 2019 - 17:37 |
|
koadah wrote: |
TV is not accurate enough to be certain of "fair".
Inducements don't fully compensate for differences in the already inaccurate TV.
The Box does not currently take coach skill into account. |
TV is not accurate, I agree, but it's generally better to have a match between teams with same TV or very close. I never talked of "certain and perfect fairness", I said "least unfair", therefore better.
Inducements don't fully compensate, I agree, this is why I prefer to play matches with small TV differences and if you remember I suggested a TV gap cap in the past.
The Box doesn't take coach skill into account, well, nor Ranked does, and I see often matches in R with difference in terms of coach rank AND TV.
In the Box there might be a coach rank difference, but the TV gaps are generally lower (with the exception of low traffic time zone and monoactivations) and you can't choose a weak opponent/team/refuse matches you don't want to play.
By the way, it's open to debate whether a match must be played by coaches of same skill. For that, there should be hundreds or thousands of users, while to have a close TV gap there is no need to have hundreds of coaches, because a single coach can have many teams at different TVs. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
  Posted:
Sep 22, 2019 - 18:42 |
|
right, but (ignoring coaching skill) differences in TV have virtually nothing to do with winning. playing big gaps is completely fine. however, differences in particular skills IS a big indicator of winning - and yes, that means if you don't want to look at the teams, that means large tv differences are somewhat more likely to have those differences in skills, but there really isn't a huge correlation.
the idea of playing with matched tv only matters if you assume both coaches know, and choose, the skills that are going to be relevant; which leads directly into coaching skill.
so if you think that 'it's generally better to have a match between teams same TV or very close', then you are already assuming coaching skill. If you then do not actually pay attention to skill, then all you're doing is saying 'hey look, i'm choosing to play one half of coaching skill such that if the other person isn't choosing the same thing, i'm going to win, because i'm not going to give the other person the option of playing way up or down in tv in order to allow inducements to make up for not having good team management skills'.
Using a matchmaker schedule without accounting for coach skill is absolutely cherrypicking, unless you ensure that everyone who also uses the matchmaking is aware of what skills are needed. It's not as obvious as the most notorious ranked games, but it's still there, particularly if you have a small player base. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Sep 22, 2019 - 20:12 |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
  Posted:
Sep 22, 2019 - 20:27 |
|
Noobs in GF can't judge the fairness of a match. Either they are not interested as long as they get quickly a game or they just can't evaluate it (not implying they are stupid, they maybe just want to have casual fun and mess around without too much concern for the outcome of the game).
If they were able to evaluate/interested in fair matches they would refuse the bad offers, yet I often see bad match-ups in R, both in terms of coach skill difference and TV difference.
The GF works in an ideal world were every coach can judge a match-up and is interested in a fair game.
In real world, noobs are preyed by the pickers and pickers dodge the bad offers.
So the blind matchmaking in the long run is fairer, because, if noobs can't dodge bad match-ups (a thing that they don't do anyway with a GF system as I explained) at least they can't be avoided when they have a good match-up (for example, noob coach with Dwarfs vs good coach with Amazons or noob monoactivating a high TV team vs good coach with underdog team and big TV difference).
Does the scheduler throw a bad match up sometimes? Yes, but over time, and with many games, the blind system is closer to the average in terms of win rate because the picking and dodging factors are removed from the equation.
If a coach really wants, with a GF system he never plays a bad match-up. With blind matchmaking he can't. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Sep 22, 2019 - 20:55 |
|
|
|
| |