Another day with Claw, sad...

51 SPP rule is basicly a double punishment for those facing high TV Killer teams. Concede and lose players or stay and lose more players.

@spiked-wall-man said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

@spiked-wall-man said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Also, I said it would be stupid without changes. Most rules of Blood Bowl are kinda stupid IMO.

Fair enough, but how would you change it to account for unintentional disconnection/crash when you can't tell the difference between that and a concession?

The numbers of concessions. If someone concedes nearly as much matches as he plays, then they could be a penalty.
I often look up the guys that concede to me and I see many 2:0 games.
More concedes, more penalties.

I hope you look at the MVP given in those games also. 2-0 dont mean concedes. 2 MVP on one side and 0 MVP on the other on the other hand do prove concede at 2-0 or 3-1 or whatever the score might be.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Yes, some people. Like the ones who say attrition is too high but also say they don't want a rez solution (which includes many of the claw-complainers). Do you deny they exist?

I don't deny there exist people that think Halflings seriously need access to Claw. I question that there is any serious subset of coaches who think attrition is too high when facing all teams such that it needs to be reduced by a flat percentage. People who complain about attrition rates are pretty specific about the sources of attrition that bother them: CPOMB teams and higher development bash teams they get matched with in MM. I have yet to see anyone make an unprompted complaint that their dwarf team deals with too much attrition when facing halflings.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I've also previously offered it as a method of reducing attrition, which it undoubtedly does (because, <snort>, maths), and does so in a race-neutral manner.

The only "math" you've done is to say that anything less is less, that's why I snort at you calling it "mathing it out". Your version of "race neutral" is just an example of someone who didn't wrap their head around the issue in any sensible way.

Imagine we have three groups of people, each that makes the same amount of money each year, but which are taxed at different rates. Group A pays 10% tax, Group B pays 20% tax, and Group C pays 50% tax. Group C complains constantly that they're being overtaxed.... so the wise governor suggests they reduce taxes by 10% so that Group A pays 9% tax, Group B pays 18% tax, and Group C pays 45% tax, and then says he has presented a sensible solution for taxes being too high.

Think the masses would cheer or would they think the guy was missing the point? I mean, he did come up with a way to address taxes in an, ahem, "group neutral manner". If people asked why they were being taxed more than other people, he would no doubt say "that's because it was the rate set out by the designers of the tax law, so... something about remit".

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I've stated my position quite clearly and you don't get to change it for me.

Yes, Dode, because that's what I was doing. Making you change your mind at gunpoint. Damn me and my psychic mind-control assaults on poor victim-dode.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Claiming it is "only worse when it fails to make matches" ignores the metric which has been put in place by the designers. Seeing as such metrics are chosen by the game designers (the only people with the authority to make subjective decisions about game metrics) they are sound metrics upon which to make objective assessments of matching.

Ahhhh, I see... so now we're making things objective by saying they "objectively" meet our subjective definitions. If only alchemists of old had thought of that... they could have actually succeeded at transmuting lead into gold by redefining what gold refers to!

Or wait, who are the designers in this case? Since BB2 uses TVPlus rating for MM, and I "created" TVPlus, does that mean I get to decide what the metrics are? I'm not sure I can handle that much power... its almost god-like, being able to magically convert subjective things into objective things. Someone find me some water to turn into wine, quick!

Now, all that aside... even if the matchmaking system tries to match people based on rating proximity, that doesn't mean that matches are inherently or objectively "worse" when they're not identical on rating. It also doesn't guarantee superior matching when you have more people, it just increases probabilities and reduces maximum possibilities.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

We seem to have drifted off-topic 🙂

Increasingly, since the last thing you'll address is the fact that you hold yourself to lower standards than you hold other people. For people in any form of authority that's known as corruption, though universally its just hypocrisy. Any time someone suggests a change to BB, you ask them to demonstrate that its needed beyond it simply being what they feel is needed.... and if they say "some people want it" you ask them for data on what percentage of players want it versus those who don't, knowing full well they won't be able to. When you play THESE games, however, you demonstrate that you're a fair-weather scientist.

I consider hypocrisy of this form to be dangerous because it inherently undermines the movement toward data and logic driven concepts in Blood Bowl when any of its proponents demonstrate that they're unwilling to live by the principles they espouse. It calls their integrity into question, and their diminished integrity becomes the easy straw man for the movement's opponents.

@supergnu said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I hope you look at the MVP given in those games also. 2-0 dont mean concedes. 2 MVP on one side and 0 MVP on the other on the other hand do prove concede at 2-0 or 3-1 or whatever the score might be.

The match entries include fields for each team that list the number of MVPs they got and the amount of winnings. Nobody is using score to determine concessions.

@the-Sage - yes, the list of commissioner options is their decision too. Again, we can say we don't like it but that's not the same thing as saying it's objectively wrong.

@SuperGnu - both MVPs and winnings can be used to determine concessions.

@VoodooMike
We've seen plenty of complaints about attrition by dwarves, their effect on stunties, how linemen should lose tackle and blitzers should gain it instead... So yeah, there are varied sources, it's just that we see most people attributing the problem to claw. I'd hypothesise that's because more people play teams which are affected by claw than by mass tackle.

You saw above the maths which showed how the mean occurrences of each type of injury would be reduced, how the percentage of injuries with an effect beyond the match would reduce to 25%.
Regarding your example, it falls down at the statement "each that makes the same amount of money each year, but which are taxed at different rates". Tax systems such as that you describe are usually progressive and based on income. Similarly, Teams don't take the same amount of attrition: it is a variable based primarily on AV. Where claw is involved equalizing those rates it is intentionally doing so in order to curb excessive growth for those teams which are affected. Under your example you gave no reason for the initial imbalance, and I would be questioning that rather than simply asking for a reduction: the question would be "why does C pay more than A and B". In BB we know why there's a difference in attrition rates. So yes, "that's the intent" is a valid answer.

You didn't use gunpoint, but you did attempt to state what my "real intent" was.

They're not our subjective definitions, they are the designers. They get to choose the definitions and we can measure against those definitions, just like win%. Your coming up with TV+ doesn't make it the definition; Cyanide choosing to use it does.
A "good match" is defined as one with a low TV+ ratings difference because that's what the system tries to achieve. Would you agree that a match with a close TV+ rating difference is less predictable than a match with a high TV+ rating difference? And would you agree that the idea is to make outcomes less predictable? And would you agree that a less predictable match is a better match (according to the system)? If so it follows that a match with a low TV+ rating difference is a better match than a match with a high TV+ rating difference.

You keep calling hypocrisy yet keep failing to demonstrate it. I've already stated what the purpose of the medical facility is, and it would undeniably achieve that purpose just as full TV+ or rez would undeniably achieve their purposes. Whether you like that purpose or not is a different matter.
Regarding the "some people" argument, what I usually try to say is "I wouldn't be against it as an option", although it's entirely possible I have failed to do so on occasion. The same applies here with the medical facility.

last edited by dode74

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

We've seen plenty of complaints about attrition by dwarves, their effect on stunties, how linemen should lose tackle and blitzers should gain it instead...

I didn't say complaints about dwarfs causing attrition, I said complaints by dwarf teams about attrition caused by halfling teams. There aren't generalized complaints about attrition rates being too high at all times, for all teams, against all teams, there are localized complaints about attrition rates at certain levels of development being caused by a certain subset of teams.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Regarding your example, it falls down at the statement "each that makes the same amount of money each year, but which are taxed at different rates". Tax systems such as that you describe are usually progressive and based on income. Similarly, Teams don't take the same amount of attrition: it is a variable based primarily on AV. Where claw is involved equalizing those rates it is intentionally doing so in order to curb excessive growth for those teams which are affected. Under your example you gave no reason for the initial imbalance, and I would be questioning that rather than simply asking for a reduction: the question would be "why does C pay more than A and B". In BB we know why there's a difference in attrition rates. So yes, "that's the intent" is a valid answer.

Your excuse here is that "that's the way it is.. and the reason is that it was decided"... but that doesn't make it different from the example: it was decided that different groups would be taxed at different rates with no association to their income. Blood Bowl teams are affected by attrition at different rates across the same number of games, attrition being like a tax on development. Your idea cuts the rates by a blanket percentage, but maintains the difference in rates.

Certainly you might question why they are being taxed at different rates, but the response would be the same as you give for BB: "it was the designer's choice". Reducing the rates by a uniform percentage would be missing the point.

There was a meta-commercial (a commercial in which they were filming a commercial) for raspberry jelly cookies in which the keebler elves, that live in a tree, were picking raspberries off the tree and turning them into the cookies using elf magic. The director of the commercial stops and goes "wait.. raspberries don't grow on trees" and the camera man turns to him and says "dude, that's what bothers you about this?". The raspberries on the tree... not the magic elves conjuring cookies. You and your idea are like the director.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

You didn't use gunpoint, but you did attempt to state what my "real intent" was.

Right. I was calling you dishonest, which is what you're being. I mean, you can counter "you're a liar" with "nuh uh!" or "stop trying to hang labels on me!" but I'm not sure that accomplishes much.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Your coming up with TV+ doesn't make it the definition; Cyanide choosing to use it does.

Unless they're using something I came up with as a matchmaking system to, say, perform open-heart surgery or to ward off evil spirits, it doesn't make much sense that they'd have a different definition or what that thing is and does than I do.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Would you agree that a match with a close TV+ rating difference is less predictable than a match with a high TV+ rating difference?

What's subjective is whether or not low predictability is a desirable quality in a match... meaning, whether that makes "better" matches or not. It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with it being better, or if it is or is not the founding concept behind the rating system... my beliefs will be likewise subjective. If they weren't, there wouldn't be several years of heated debate over TVPlus.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

You keep calling hypocrisy yet keep failing to demonstrate it.

Uh no, you keep being obtuse about it but I've pointed out why what you're doing is hypocritical many times on this thread: you're pushing an idea that has no foundation beyond "some people think".. which doesn't address any demonstrable phenomenon. When other people do exactly what you're doing, you shoot their complaints and ideas down by saying they are not rooted in data or evidence... but consider your own, similar ideas to be worthy of consideration. That's hypocrisy.

So go ahead and be a hypocrite... but expect to have the topic revisited the next time you try to shoot down someone else's similarly arbitrary ideas. It doesn't matter if YOU think you're being a hypocrite... hypocrites rarely agree with the label... it matters whether other people justifiably (or on a large scale even unjustifiably) think you are. If you think your excuses are good enough to convince other people then you're good to go. I suspect they're not.

There aren't generalized complaints about attrition rates being too high at all times, for all teams, against all teams, there are localized complaints about attrition rates at certain levels of development being caused by a certain subset of teams.

Sure, there are more vocal complaints about those specific attrition rates, but there are also generalised complaints. Again, remember the context in which the medical facility as a stadium upgrade was suggested: people were suggesting extra apo's after the match, and that's something which we both know will benefit teams which take fewer casualties more. A team-neutral option which will reduce attrition across the board is a better solution, and as a stadium upgrade would be something bought after some team development.

Your idea cuts the rates by a blanket percentage, but maintains the difference in rates.

Which is the intent. You seem to be under the impression it is otherwise.

Right. I was calling you dishonest, which is what you're being.

"Nuh uh" is indeed my counter. Unless you have some evidence that I'm actually being dishonest - and I don't think you've yet developed a mind-reading capability - then all you're doing is misrepresenting me. I've stated my position and you don't get to alter it.

Unless they're using something I came up with as a matchmaking system to, say, perform open-heart surgery or to ward off evil spirits, it doesn't make much sense that they'd have a different definition or what that thing is and does than I do.

Do you agree that the goal of TV+ matching is to make matches less predictable? Do you agree that matches with closer TV+ ratings will be less predictable?

What's subjective is whether or not low predictability is a desirable quality in a match

Absolutely, but the game designers, by using TV+, have decided it is. That's their remit to choose, just like win% is; hell, it's their remit to make it a fantasy football game rather than . We can measure how it changes objectively, just like win%.

you keep being obtuse about it but I've pointed out why what you're doing is hypocritical many times on this thread: you're pushing an idea that has no foundation beyond "some people think"

Which they do, and I have suggested an option which does what they want: reduces the attrition rates. If I were saying "the game needs this" that would be a different matter as I would be making an objective statement, but I am not doing that.

@voodoomike said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

The match entries include fields for each team that list the number of MVPs they got and the amount of winnings. Nobody is using score to determine concessions.

I can not say that i can find anything like that when looking on one of my teams that i know have a concede. Unless ofc i click on the team it self and see the results, is that what you mean? Then that is what i meant. But i might not have been very clear, sorry about that.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

"Nuh uh" is indeed my counter.

Oh I know it is... it always is... my point is simply that you think your say-so is enough which is predicated on the idea that you're honest, which is begging your point when you're being accused of dishonesty. I'm not going to go round and round in the endless reductive circles you're fond of - people can make their own judgments based on the facts at hand. My simple statement is this: expect situations like this to be thrown in your face in future when you try to hold others to higher standards than you hold yourself.

@supergnu said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I can not say that i can find anything like that when looking on one of my teams that i know have a concede. Unless ofc i click on the team it self and see the results, is that what you mean? Then that is what i meant. But i might not have been very clear, sorry about that.

It looks like goblinSpy is not displaying the winnings or MVP fields in its standard matches display, but they're in the data it uses. GoblinSpy tells you which matches ended in concession, and by whom... and if you click details on a match it'll show you who, if any, on each team got MVP. Even if there weren't those fields I mention, it could work from the fact that a given team had no players that received an MVP to determine whether the match was a concession or not.

@supergnu said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I can not say that i can find anything like that when looking on one of my teams that i know have a concede. Unless ofc i click on the team it self and see the results, is that what you mean? Then that is what i meant. But i might not have been very clear, sorry about that.

It's in the output I get (and mordrek gets, for goblinspy) from Cyanide.

@voodoomike said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

expect situations like this to be thrown in your face in future when you try to hold others to higher standards than you hold yourself.

I would expect it to be if that's what I was doing.

last edited by dode74

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:
Would you agree that a match with a close TV+ rating difference is less predictable than a match with a high TV+ rating difference ?

Don't want to interfere too much in your debate, but on that particular point I am not sure that there is an absolute Rule.

On One hand Some Team with a Lower TV in a High TV difference game can fare very well. I have very often seen the low TV team reinforced with inducement become the best squad.

On the other Hand sometimes it is the opposite and inducments do not really help.

So about your statement that TV+ helps reduce the TV difference than makes it for more balnaced game (I believe you use "unpredictible games" as a synonym to "Balanced Game"), I am not sure it is true.

I understand the intent, But I am not sure it does reach the target.

Only thing I am sure is there is no perfect system that will allow to pair players in MM. So going with what the game as to offer works for me.

last edited by JRCO

I think perhaps you misunderstood. A lower TV+ difference (which is not the same thing as TV difference) is, by design of TV+, a less predictable match. Mike knows this because he designed the system.

I agree there's no perfect system, but that wasn't the point being made.

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

On One hand Some Team with a Lower TV in a High TV difference game can fare very well. I have very often seen the low TV team reinforced with inducement become the best squad.

You mean like Halfling teams doing better when they're 400 TV down? These are urban legends. All rosters do better when they're at a TV advantage. No roster does better when it is playing from a disadvantage. That doesn't mean all higher TV teams are better - you can build a team with a high TV that is total garbage, but if you didn't then your higher TV team has an inherent advantage over an opposing team with a lower TV (relative to how the game would play out if you both were playing those same rosters and had equal TV, or the TV advantage was reversed).

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

So about your statement that TV+ helps reduce the TV difference than makes it for more balnaced game (I believe you use "unpredictible games" as a synonym to "Balanced Game"), I am not sure it is true.

TVPlus rating difference is a greater predictor of match outcome than TV difference, which means that matching on TVPlus rating results in inherently less predictable outcomes. Yes, we use "unpredictable" as a synonym for "balanced" because in a balanced match between two people you don't know who will win prior to the match beginning... if you could guess with better than 50% accuracy you'd know the match was biased.

What CAN be disputed is whether or not balanced matches are preferable to unbalanced matches, and that boils down to whether you think matchmaking is a "virtual tournament with an infinite number of tiers" or if you think its a means of getting instant, appropriate matches. In tournaments you don't want balanced matches, you want to eliminate people from the running based on success or failure... otherwise you do want balanced matches because you're using an open play environment to let people find multiplayer games of the appropriate challenge level.

If MM was just an open-ended virtual tournament we wouldn't bother with having a tournament at the end of CCL seasons, we'd just use the top ranked person as the winner. That doesn't seem to satisfy anybody... so I question how seriously anyone believes MM is a virtual tournament in that way.

@voodoomike said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

On One hand Some Team with a Lower TV in a High TV difference game can fare very well. I have very often seen the low TV team reinforced with inducement become the best squad.

You mean like Halfling teams doing better when they're 400 TV down? These are urban legends. All rosters do better when they're at a TV advantage. No roster does better when it is playing from a disadvantage. That doesn't mean all higher TV teams are better - you can build a team with a high TV that is total garbage, but if you didn't then your higher TV team has an inherent advantage over an opposing team with a lower TV (relative to how the game would play out if you both were playing those same rosters and had equal TV, or the TV advantage was reversed).

I disagree. You take short cut and make a statement that I believe is very wrong. For example : take a vamp team, very often they are the higher TV team, But Rarely the best team. Usually inducement severely imbalance game for the lower team in that case. And there are other examples. And there are Data to prove it, if Vampire were a dominant team data would show it ..... and it isn't the case.

Want a proof that the higher TV is not necesserally "an inherent advantage" in all occasions : I currently play in LFBB a Rookie Vamp team surrounded by experienced teams. Each Game I receive tonns of inducements, It helps me scoring 3 wins, 2 draw and only 1 loss (If you want to check that I am not lying Cf : http://ligue-bloodbowl.fr/classements/chpt.html?du=99&dd=100&dt=101#division3c).

One key for success in Match making is TV management as some different race are more efficient at some tV than other.

That is why any experienced player knows that an advantage in TV doesn't
necesserally means you have the advantage. Sometimes it is the case, but sometimes not.

last edited by JRCO

So where do you want to go with that? That's a fine anecdote and congratulations on doing so well with your Rookie Vamps, but it is still that: an anecdote. We are talking a statistical advantage here. Where is the data you claim proves your point? I checked last season CCL on PC and it does not (still, that's only 1116 games, not that relevant. far more though than your 5).

Edit: 4 actually. You already played the other fresh team in your league 😛

last edited by Vulpes

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I disagree.

Cool, that just makes you wrong. The statement is not that its impossible to win a game when you're the TV underdog, the statement is that all rosters across hundreds of thousands of games display superior win rates at a TV advantage than they do at a TV disadvantage. This isn't a feeling.. or an anecdote.. this is a fact.

@voodoomike said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I disagree.

Cool, that just makes you wrong. The statement is not that its impossible to win a game when you're the TV underdog, the statement is that all rosters across hundreds of thousands of games display superior win rates at a TV advantage than they do at a TV disadvantage. This isn't a feeling.. or an anecdote.. this is a fact.

This is a fact ...said You.

Sorry your belief is wrong. and that is a fact too.... Said me.

I read your message and your full of certitude and very often assert general truth as if it was the absolute truth , but here your wrong.

That in general the Higher TV team has an advantage shouldn't hide that in numerous situation also inducement may give the advantage to the lower TV team. It may not be the majority of situation, but I claim it ain't neglectable either.

Fact you deny it, well : doesn't mean you are right.

You claim you have data about the 1116 games but you avoid detailing them ? What is the percentage of wins of Higher TV teams is that 100% ? 60% ? More ? Less ? Nope ; you just claim there are data , period. Not very convincing.

And at what TV range are you data ? Are they Consistent across races ? What TV difference do You consider... etc... I doubt you have done a very detailed and depp study to support your claim.

last edited by JRCO

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

You claim you have data about the 1116 games but you avoid detailing them ? What is the percentage of wins of Higher TV teams is that 100% ? 60% ? More ? Less ? Nope ; you just claim there are data , period. Not very convincing.

I have data from over a million matches on BB1, BB2 and FUMBBL, actually. Here's a thought, if you don't like my summary of what the data says howsabout instead of demanding a different summary you go download the data and verify these facts for yourself? It's pretty clear you're not going to listen to anyone but yourself on this topic, so dig in... but try to understand that your anecdotes and feelings are not serious data that generalizes to the outside world.

Then again, asking for percentages suggests you don't know anything about data analysis so... maybe just sit there, cross your arms and pout?

May I remind you that you were the one claiming "there is data" without saying where?

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I disagree. You take short cut and make a statement that I believe is very wrong. For example : take a vamp team, very often they are the higher TV team, But Rarely the best team. Usually inducement severely imbalance game for the lower team in that case. And there are other examples. And there are Data to prove it, if Vampire were a dominant team data would show it ..... and it isn't the case.

I even asked you for it:

@vulpes said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Where is the data you claim proves your point?

I checked the most recent, easiest accessible data, voodoomike already had the long term picture years ago by aquired data. So how about you?

@voodoomike said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

@jrco said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

You claim you have data about the 1116 games but you avoid detailing them ? What is the percentage of wins of Higher TV teams is that 100% ? 60% ? More ? Less ? Nope ; you just claim there are data , period. Not very convincing.

I have data from over a million matches on BB1, BB2 and FUMBBL, actually. Here's a thought, if you don't like my summary of what the data says howsabout instead of demanding a different summary you go download the data and verify these facts for yourself? It's pretty clear you're not going to listen to anyone but yourself on this topic, so dig in... but try to understand that your anecdotes and feelings are not serious data that generalizes to the outside world.

Then again, asking for percentages suggests you don't know anything about data analysis so... maybe just sit there, cross your arms and pout?

You just say a statement being an absolute truth that it is Black and white : the highest TV team has the advantage. Except If I did wrongly understand, you even suggest "always" (except some neglectable insignifiant situation ).

And I am the one listening only to myself ?

I just say that I can't believe it is black and white, I believe It is gray and that there are numerous situation where the lowest TV team is not at disadvantage baring inducements.

I do not say it is the majority of situation, I just maintain it is not insignifiant either.

I gave you specific example (ie : Vampire for example) but there are other. You choose to ignore them or explain data to prove me wrong.

ie : Are you absolutely sure :

  • a 1250 Chaos team is so much better than a 1100 elves or Skavens team with a wizard ?
  • a 2250 vampire is better and win in most case against a 2100 Chaos, 2100 chaos dwarves,2100 Necris o or a 2000 Skavens ?

Does your data really demonstrates that ? Let me doubt it.
Your trying to make me look like a fool, is not just unfair, it make me believe you have data but have not done a deep analysis of them. I don't have access to your data, yes, doesn't mean what I say based on experience is necerrally stupid.

Your not trying to discuss but just make your absolute truth the truth. So you obviously do not want to understand that some nuances do exist.

So Be It.

Obviously the entire data set will tell you the overall statistics when looked at as a group.

You're not going to find out if a skaven team that has a MA10/Sprint/Sure Feet gutter will be better off 150K down or a 150K up unless you search for matches with those exact situations and there are enough of them to reach a conclusion. I know as a coach I would rather play that team 150K down, but that's likely not true for all coaches.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.