dode74 wrote:I know, and that doesn't change a word of what I said.licker34 wrote:Did you miss the context of discussing teams with fewer than 5 games played?
Then what you said was completely tangential and irrelevant to the point I was making.
dode74 wrote:Which is a reason to INCREASE the 50, not decrease it. Because your team with 3 wins more might actually find playing the sameTVplusWizard team a walkover.Teams with that few games have not had the time to establish their actual performance level to a satisfactory level.
Where did I say anything about changing the zsum multiplier? Set it to whatever you want, it STILL WON'T WORK WELL FOR TEAMS WITH FEW GAMES.
Math, that's what Mike would say, and you don't understand it. And they he'd change your nickname (probably to Dope74, but I don't think you are one) and call you a troll.
dode74 wrote:No, you just don't like it. There's a pretty big difference. If they are evenly matched and coach B wins then the system is doing its job! And you're still talking as if a wizard is an iWin button...I don't even care if that's fair or not, it's dumb is the point.
Really? When I specifically said spend your 160k on something other than a wizard? But none of that remotely addresses the point I was making.
For some reason you didn't quote the actual example I gave. You seem to do that a lot when the examples might prove inconvenient to the truth you are trying to sell.
The fact is that no matter what zsum multiplier you want to choose it won't accomplish it's goal for teams with few games played. Mike actually acknowledged this in some thread somewhere before he got all huffy at me for being smarter than him. See I agree that TV++ will do the job it's supposed to do when the environment it's applied to is large and robust (meaning coaches not churning teams at a high rate). Now I don't think that job needs to be done, but that's beside the point of what I'm getting at now.
Which is that at low games played TV++ won't do what it's supposed to do, and it will lead to more 'uneven' pairings because of the variance in performance at low TV (and I really mean only for new teams, but also true for teams with few skills/rrs even if they have played more games). If your numbers from before are true, and most teams are retired around the 5 game mark than it follows that most of the games actually played are being played by teams with few games, and thus inaccurate zsums.
That's not really a problem if you only look at aggregates, but the problem is that those aggregates are created by individuals, and it's the experience had in those individuals which actually matters. If TV++ makes that experience worse at this end, that's a problem, and that's why the suggestion was made to not even apply TV++ until after a certain number of games had been played by the team, and Mike wasn't opposed to that because he recognized this as a potential issue.
Let's say you and Mike both make new Human teams with the same build, and lets say you play each other in the first game for each team. Let's say the game is 1-1 and on turn 15 you have to make a simple dodge with your catcher to score. You fail the 1/9, Mike is able to pick it up and hand it off to his own catcher who then runs away and scores the next turn. As in my example, now if you two are matched again, Mike will be facing ~150k in inducements against him. And for what reason? Because you hit an 11% and he didn't? That sounds reasonable to you?
Because here's the thing. If you (meaning Mike probably) had played your 10s or 100s or 1000s of open ladder matches you'd know how common results like that are between evenly matched coaches. It's the pure variance of the dice which turn wins into losses. As TV grows though, this variance is reduced because you have added more skills (which lower it) and more rerolls, and even have a bench or apo to reduce casualty variance.
At low games played you have none of that, yet you want to handicap these mechanically identical teams anyway. That pushing for an aggregate result of 50/50, but as I've said so many times, it's the individual games which actually matter, and people are not going to be thrilled to face ridiculous inducements after one game.
And that's like my opinion. But one based off of 100s of actual games played in actual ladders. You know what though? It really won't bother me that much, I'm not worried about it affecting my ability to reach whatever zsum I wind up reaching. I'm not even worried about it annoying me in the short term, because I can get over it. I'm not the guy who's recycling his teams every 5 matches.
But for those guys who are prone to do that? Yeah, I think this makes it worse for them. Not that it matters right? We're not getting TV++, we're getting something else which will do something else. Still, if you're serious about making TV++ the best it can be, then you do need to address this low games played issue.
Or, just ignore it because some pool of data says something and guys who've played approximately zero ladder games know what's best for guys who've played 1000s of them, and chatted with their opponents in them. You want to paint me as a power mad fumbbl douchebag (ok, you're more classy than Mike, and I appreciate it) who only cares about my win rate. In fact that's just not true. Well the fumbbl part is and douchebag part might be I'm a lot like you, I want a better environment than what we have, though, as we agree, that environment is really beyond our control or ability to greatly influence.
I still think you and Mike are missing a golden opportunity to really balance out these matches though. You can mine your data pool to see what the actual TV imbalances are for the purely mechanical differences at low TV and just give Chaos some free inducements when they play Dark Elfs since they are clearly an underdog, and the goal is to give every team a 50% chance of winning.