Mingoose
Joined: Jul 28, 2016
|
 Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 04:11 |
 
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Mingoose wrote: |
The premise is that TV doesn’t equal team strength, and the game is designed to compensate for TV differences in a meaningful way to make matches equal. Therefore there is no need to create matches with equal TV. |
It isn't meant to stop it, full on stop it - it's meant to avoid potentially goofy situations from prior matchmaking where a contingent of coaches went out of their way to optimize around in TV in ways that were just a pain in the neck to deal with if you weren't in on that racket. |
I don't understand how this avoids goofy matchmaking. Instead of having optimized TV 1100 teams vs sub-optimal TV 1100 teams, now you will have optimized TV 1100 teams vs sub-optimal TV 1200 teams. Now your team gets to give away 100k in inducements AND get stomped by an optimized team. How does giving an optimized UW team two free bribes solve your issue? |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 05:15 |
|
This is more a historical issue than anything else and one from before even I joined Fumbbl. I can't speak to anything about that era of why TV and not something else but I will tell you that in the wake, an additional thing was added to the matchmaking process - a consideration of how many games a team had played that trailed off bit by bit after every game.
The reason being that TV matchmaking in itself, with time to explore meta rackets, yielded an issue where TV matchmaking alone had fresh teams running into 100+ game teams at near TV parity. And lest you think this was a shining flagship team succumbing to the carnage of the pitch for two or three games, it was not. It was an exploration of what was allowed for under the rules.
I conflate the 15 game rule with TV matchmaking only because in most cases, it wasn't an issue at all really for the vast majority of matches made. And on the other end of the spectrum, I did another thing where I grew my teams out to ridiculous TV proportions simply to deal with parts of the CRP6 meta I didn't like, like CPOMB. That my reaction of building 2400 TV+ teams combined with solely activating my flagship resulted in games where I was up against a 1600 tv Undead team built as well as it could be for the TV...Yeah, them's the breaks of building up a team.
Per your question, my measure of goofy matchmaking is throwing baby teams to the Fumbbl addicted wolves and calling it good because at least there is a system in place that tries to make good matches. I don't think someone having a suboptimized team at 1200 squaring off against a tuner is goofy matchmaking, especially as the one with the suboptimal team at 1200. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 05:23 |
|
I seriously don't know why TV matchmaking became a thing in the first place, it just was for me. Anyone wanna explain that? |
|
|
Gartch
Joined: Sep 07, 2012
|
| Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 08:34 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | Gartch wrote: |
I don't understand what are G, W and T in your formula.
|
I guess G stands for "Games played", W for "Wins", T for "Ties". |
Ok thank for the answer. |
|
|
Gartch
Joined: Sep 07, 2012
|
| Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 08:45 |
|
| Mingoose wrote: | | (...) and the game is designed to compensate for TV differences in a meaningful way to make matches equal. Therefore there is no need to create matches with equal TV.(...) |
Hi Mingoose!
I disagree with the extract from your post above : The inducements are a "compensation" for the TV difference, but not as good as TV.
So the advantage is for the team with higher TV. The only exceptions in the former rules was the wizard, but if I understood correctly, he has been removed in the new rules.
So when you play in a scheduled league, you will not cycle your healthy players who got too much spp just to keep your TV low because you are going to play vs other teams with higher TV and be at disadvantage.
For example: team A and B play each other for the 5th match of the league. Team A is at TV 1120 and team B only at TV 1020 because of cycling healthy players. Now team A has 5 useful normal skills (not random): let's say 3 blocks and 2 dodges. And team B got a free RR (100k inducement).
In this example team A has a huge advantage; 3 block+2dodges is way better than an additionnal RR. |
|
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 08:57 |
|
1. So, people do not like large TV differences in games because the perception is that inducements were/are not good enough to make the games balanced. Is that a correct summary?
2. So now we have new inducements, and new stars plus a system that forces most games to be played in a smaller TV range.
3. Assuming points 1 and 2 are correct, perhaps TV should now be ignored until we see if inducements and stars are now sufficient to make games reasonably level.
4. If, this is true and stars plus inducements make games reasonably balanced, there may be no need to match teams based on seasons or games played. A new team to any league (Fumbbl or Table Top) will face teams with a season or two under their belt. The redraft is meant to level the playing field. |
|
|
Verminardo
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 09:09 |
|
| happygrue wrote: | | TL;DR We can't stop munchkin pickers, but we can make them squirm a bit! |
I actually like this idea quite a bit. |
|
|
almic85
Joined: May 25, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 09:34 |
|
| Kondor wrote: | 1. So, people do not like large TV differences in games because the perception is that inducements were/are not good enough to make the games balanced. Is that a correct summary?
2. So now we have new inducements, and new stars plus a system that forces most games to be played in a smaller TV range.
3. Assuming points 1 and 2 are correct, perhaps TV should now be ignored until we see if inducements and stars are now sufficient to make games reasonably level.
4. If, this is true and stars plus inducements make games reasonably balanced, there may be no need to match teams based on seasons or games played. A new team to any league (Fumbbl or Table Top) will face teams with a season or two under their belt. The redraft is meant to level the playing field. |
It comes down to a philosophy of how you want the site to run.
Do you want the competitive division to try and mirror the “intent†of the rules and simulate a league format or do you want to continue with the idea that FUMBBLs competitive division is intended as a perpetual league with each game intended to be as competitive as possible.
If you want to go down the league simulation then a match making system based on matching teams by the number of games into its season is the answer. It shouldn’t matter what season they are in because teams start in leagues at different times anyway. It will end up with teams generally starting each season in a similar TV spot, but ending up wildly different as teams win or lose throughout their system.
If you want to go down current perpetual league system of trying to make each game as even as possible then you implement TV matching (or some other measurement of Team Strength) regardless of what game each team is up to in their season. This should mean less inducements all up but will encourage some coaches to “milk†the system to stay in a more competitive TV bracket.
I think that the impact of inducements one way or the other is kind of irrelevant.
Either you think that inducements don’t make up the difference in TV, in which case having TV matching will lead to more competitive games as the underdog doesn’t suffer. .
Or you think that inducements do make up the difference (and then some if you look at what Hakflem is doing to tournaments) in which case TV matching will lead to more competitive games as the underdog doesn’t gain an advantage. |
_________________
SWL the place to be.
If you're interested join the Fringe |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 11:40 |
|
If inducements do even up the games the is there any need for TV matching?
It should probably be relegated behind "games played this season" if only to try to discourage min/maxing.
We're not really going to know how this is going to play out and which exploits will surface without trying it.
Teams shouldn't get so big, super freaks shouldn't hang around as long, +ST is horribly expensive, some luckers will completely screw up TV with an insane run of random skill rolls.
I think ya gotta suck it and see.
If it stinks, roll it back.
If you just stick with the old, you'll never know and that will probably stink even worse. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Medon
Joined: Jan 28, 2015
|
| Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 12:54 |
|
What if teams were to be paired based purely on coach rating?
This mimics a promotion/relegation league system in which top coaches play in the highest premier league whereas new entrants start in the 145 |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 13:01 |
|
Coach rating MM is not possible, not enough people are online to do a good pairing by CR. Unless you loosen the brackets, something like Legend-Star bracket, Emerging Star-Rookie bracket.
That could work, I guess. |
|
|
mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
| Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 13:12 |
|
| Medon wrote: | What if teams were to be paired based purely on coach rating?
This mimics a promotion/relegation league system in which top coaches play in the highest premier league whereas new entrants start in the 145 |
I'd hate it as it means playing stunties or more experimental teams would cut you from playing against certain coaches because the potential cr loss.
I wonder if rookie protection makes sense. If we simulate league runs I'd assume not really as you would enter an existing league with no such thing, besides the given inducements. |
_________________
 |
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 13:56 |
|
| almic85 wrote: | | Kondor wrote: | 1. So, people do not like large TV differences in games because the perception is that inducements were/are not good enough to make the games balanced. Is that a correct summary?
2. So now we have new inducements, and new stars plus a system that forces most games to be played in a smaller TV range.
3. Assuming points 1 and 2 are correct, perhaps TV should now be ignored until we see if inducements and stars are now sufficient to make games reasonably level.
4. If, this is true and stars plus inducements make games reasonably balanced, there may be no need to match teams based on seasons or games played. A new team to any league (Fumbbl or Table Top) will face teams with a season or two under their belt. The redraft is meant to level the playing field. |
It comes down to a philosophy of how you want the site to run.
Do you want the competitive division to try and mirror the “intent†of the rules and simulate a league format or do you want to continue with the idea that FUMBBLs competitive division is intended as a perpetual league with each game intended to be as competitive as possible.
If you want to go down the league simulation then a match making system based on matching teams by the number of games into its season is the answer. It shouldn’t matter what season they are in because teams start in leagues at different times anyway. It will end up with teams generally starting each season in a similar TV spot, but ending up wildly different as teams win or lose throughout their system.
If you want to go down current perpetual league system of trying to make each game as even as possible then you implement TV matching (or some other measurement of Team Strength) regardless of what game each team is up to in their season. This should mean less inducements all up but will encourage some coaches to “milk†the system to stay in a more competitive TV bracket.
|
In the past, the site made ever effort to be as true to the rules as it can. For example, the effort is being made to implement seasons.
Inducements are the part of the rules that equalize TV differences. Nothing in the rules talks about matching based on TV, number of games, or number of seasons.
Again, since the potential TV difference will be so much smaller, I would recommend trying to match games without regard to any of these factors. It would fit more closely within the rules.
I don't know the history of the site well enough to know when the decision was made to match based on TV. However, I do think it was the best decision possible at the time.
. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
Ok.
there is nothing directly in the rulebook to suggest TV matching, this is true.
But there is an entire section, and all the inducements, written entirely to come into play if the game isnt of similar TV, to help balance matches, it does say that. So to pretend there is no reason to think of a game with similar TV and no inducements as 'balanced', by Blood Bowl standards, is a little silly and disingenuous at best.
We none of us know what is best in the new ruleset for perpetual online play, that is the only conclusion anyone can reasonably draw, EVERYTHING else is theory bowling right now.
We have only the early warning signs of how people will play the rules, and build their teams, this will also have huge impact.
The meta has yet to learn to crawl.
I share the interest and concerns as to whether any of the old systems are relevant in the new order, and am not wedded to anything except the twin concepts of 'reasonably balanced games' and 'selected and/or randomly generated pairings'. When there is moe data, and less data contamination by 'lets do new things' I will be behind any move that preserves and promotes those ideals.
For now, TV has clear imperfections, but its a place to start. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
| Posted:
Sep 30, 2021 - 15:41 |
|
What kind of data are you hoping for? Cyanide won't include season draft, NAF tournaments deal with balancing in their own way, currently we are in an age of picking and getting picked. To approach MM in a new way we would need to try it. And then tweak it accordingly.
After all there have been in many gud arguments in the OP post for TV not being a place to start. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
