For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly

@dode74

I don't see how speaking to the people behind TrueSkill makes TV+ any more appropriate or not. It might have been interesting but it isn't relevant to Bloodbowl. If fair matches were the only thing that made games fun and interesting then you could reduce the game to a coin toss and that would be more fun and interesting yet that isn't something people find particularly fun.

It's more complicated than that, and involves understanding the way the game is designed and works. You've made a change that results in matches being less predictable and you've made an effort to verify that the change has that affect which is fine. It can't be used as an argument for why that was a good thing in the first place.

I don't think data on its own can judge whether a greater number of people are having fun or not. Looking at concessions is flawed because people are heavily punished for conceding.

@woofbark said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

I don't think data on its own can judge whether a greater number of people are having fun or not.

Neither can asking a small self-selecting group of people for their opinions, and that's all you've got. Given that our mind-reading machine is currently not in service, the fact that it is creating more balanced matches and reducing the effect of the very metric you bitch about excess differences of, seems to leave us with all known evidence being in favour of the current system.

The on-pitch game is not altered in any way, so the garbage about replacing the game with a coin flip is stupid.

BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

@woofbark said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

I don't see how speaking to the people behind TrueSkill makes TV+ any more appropriate or not. It might have been interesting but it isn't relevant to Bloodbowl.

I talked to them about matchmaking concepts in general, not TrueSkill alone - TrueSkill is not pertinent for Blood Bowl since it is a 2-player game, and Glicko would serve the same purpose. Making fair matches is a central concept to non-random matchmaking.

If fair matches were the only thing that made games fun and interesting then you could reduce the game to a coin toss and that would be more fun and interesting yet that isn't something people find particularly fun.

Oh come on, you're above that sort of reductio ad absurdum. There's more to "interest and fun" than just fairness, but if we take the same basic game of Blood Bowl and can offer either a fair match or an unfair match it's not unreasonable to say that more people would want the fair match. Or would you want the unfair match (bearing in mind you have no idea which side the advantage will go to)?

It's more complicated than that, and involves understanding the way the game is designed and works. You've made a change that results in matches being less predictable and you've made an effort to verify that the change has that affect which is fine. It can't be used as an argument for why that was a good thing in the first place.

The in-game design has some relevance to the method of matching, but it's not central when the most influential metrics are known. That's one of the reasons straight Elo is a good systemic foundation for a number of symmetrical games, and why Elo needs to be adjusted for asymmetrical games. That's what Mike and I have been looking at.

I don't think data on its own can judge whether a greater number of people are having fun or not. Looking at concessions is flawed because people are heavily punished for conceding.

There is no way to tell if more people are having fun or not (certainly not how loudly a few individuals protest), but the blind test we ran, which included people complaining about the matchmaking on stream while TV matching was happening, showed that people simply couldn't tell the difference between TV and TV+ matching. That puts the lie to the "it makes the game less fun" brigade, because they can't tell.
Data can tell you whether more people are getting more balanced matches or not, and unless you are going to claim that unbalanced matches are generally more desirable than balanced matches (which would be contrary to the basic concept of non-random matchmaking and contradicts all the calls we've seen to make the game "more balanced") then that's precisely what the data does tell us that TVPlus does.

@dode74

Have there ever been mass complaints about the matchmaking crating unfair matches due to coach skill? I don't think I've ever read such a complaint by anyone.

I don't understand why it's considered necessary to handicap good coaches when there's literally no evidence to suggest playing against a good coach is a negative experience.

I'd imagine people were still complaining about TV difference during season XI because there were still TV imbalances occurring, just less frequently.

BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

There was no change in frequency of complaints in S11 that I saw.

As for people complaining, that's not the criteria for better matchmaking. The criteria (in accordance with the principles Microsoft used) is "creates more even matches" and TV+ undeniably does exactly that.

I don't understand why it's considered necessary to handicap good coaches

To create more even matches, and therefore better matchmaking. If we had many, many coaches in the game it wouldn't be needed, but there aren't, so it is. It's worth remembering that BB already has a form of handicapping in the form of inducements.

last edited by dode74

@woofbark said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

Have there ever been mass complaints about the matchmaking crating unfair matches due to coach skill? I don't think I've ever read such a complaint by anyone.

If there was a visible number assigned to people's coaching skill then you can bet your ass people would whine about mismatches. Likewise, if we hid the TV of each team, the complaints about TV mismatches would go down. The complaints are about perception, and frequently those perceptions are demonstrably incorrect... but, as this thread demonstrates, evidence rarely convinces people who have already decided on a position and have no interest in being confused by the facts.

That such people didn't notice an experiential, qualitative difference when TV matching was used, and continued to complain that TVPlus was ruining their life, it's safe to say that we're dealing with incorrect perceptions from people who fit that bill. It means they're incorrectly blaming TVPlus for... whatever... since they keep complaining even when its not in place!

@woofbark said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

I don't understand why it's considered necessary to handicap good coaches when there's literally no evidence to suggest playing against a good coach is a negative experience.

Imbalances are generally considered to be a negative experience for the person at a disadvantage. You yourself whine pretty loudly about TV imbalances... and what are those if not actual or perceived biases that negatively impact your ability to compete and win? Now you're confused about why an imbalance might be perceived as negative while at the same time complaining about another imbalance being a negative thing?

This isn't a knock-out tournament, this is matchmaking - we're trying to find each person a pairing that will provide them with a fun and appropriate Blood Bowl game. It's disingenuous to suggest that people universally, or even generally, enjoy a lopsided match in any sort of game - one where they didn't stand a serious chance of winning and the deck was stacked against them right from the start. Most people will pay lip service to the idea of not wanting to be on the delivering end of a blood bath either, but they're generally full of it - they'll take those easy wins with little complaint.

So, the aim is to create, to the best our ability, matches where the two participants start on as equal footing as possible such that neither side is profoundly disadvantaged relative to the other.

@woofbark said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

I'd imagine people were still complaining about TV difference during season XI because there were still TV imbalances occurring, just less frequently.

I'd imagine that if TVPlus were the cause of their perceived problems they would have stopped complaining about them when it wasn't being used. As it stands not a single one of you whiners noticed.... but the numbers people noticed the amplified imbalances within the environment.

What I really think it boils down to is that the coaches that are on the upper side of the skill curve want to sit around kicking around the less skilled coaches, and they resent any system that makes them work for their wins... claiming it punishes them for being good. If easy wins are what you think the "reward" for being good is supposed to be then you should stick to single player games.

I think I'm done with this discussion. It certainly hasn't changed my mind.

I love it when people like VoodoMike call this "Whinning".

I play the game for FUN. And playing a at -500TV is NOT fun (for me). Just lost to a 42+ games Vampire team yesterday with my 12 games team. (2000+ vs 1500+). I like playing the game, and want it to be more fun...

And as FUN is subjective, let players decide if they like to wait much longer for match making or get chance for higher TV dif. If it was a per player settable parameter, you can see what players really prefer.

I think this will also give metrics for the future, so my suggestion is to add a per-player matchmaking parameter for TV dif that can be set 500-250/300.

As for your question earlier in the discussion, if anyone left the game due to that, maybe not, but I am very much inclined to.....

@yogi said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

I love it when people like VoodoMike call this "Whinning".

I'm glad, though I usually spell it correctly. Which synonym of whining would you prefer be used to describe what you're doing?

@yogi said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

I play the game for FUN. And playing a at -500TV is NOT fun (for me). Just lost to a 42+ games Vampire team yesterday with my 12 games team. (2000+ vs 1500+). I like playing the game, and want it to be more fun...

You mean the -470 TV game that you lost 0-1 while sustaining no injuries or deaths... dishing out two MNGs and a niggle to the other guy's vampires? The only other game your Nurgle team has played with a TV difference larger than 200 was against an Orc team (-430) that conceded to you after you inflicted two -AG injuries on them.

It kind'v sounds like your definition of "fun" and "fair" are "I win without difficulty, like I deserve to".

@yogi said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

And as FUN is subjective, let players decide if they like to wait much longer for match making or get chance for higher TV dif. If it was a per player settable parameter, you can see what players really prefer.

Or here's a thought... Get the hell out of CCL and go play in COL instead. CCL is a competitive league with prize money, not a masturbation league meant to boost your self-confidence. In COL you can concede any game you've arbitrarily decided isn't "fair" or "fun" to you, and re-queue for another.

@yogi said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

I think this will also give metrics for the future, so my suggestion is to add a per-player matchmaking parameter for TV dif that can be set 500-250/300.

That is literally never going to happen in CCL. I cannot fathom how you imagined even for a second that it would. If nothing else it would completely negate the use of CCL as a serious competition.

@yogi said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

As for your question earlier in the discussion, if anyone left the game due to that, maybe not, but I am very much inclined to.....

Vote with your feet, not a high-pitched keening.

@voodoomike said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

That is literally never going to happen in CCL. I cannot fathom how you imagined even for a second that it would. If nothing else it would completely negate the use of CCL as a serious competition.

What's the base of this argument?

Why would it negate the competitiveness or its seriousness if people are willing to wait longer and play more fair matches (a goal TVPlus MM is supposed to achieve anyway) instead of playing more unfair ones? At the moment, it is very much dependent on luck who you are matched with (in the context of restricted choice of potential match-partners).

Are fewer matches played that are more fair less competitive? I thought the fair matches were more competitive. Are longer waiting times less competitive? Where does the diminished seriousness come in? Are fair matches less serious?

Are people who are willing to play more TV-skewed matches (naturally in some cases in the hope to be the TV-overdog more often than not) more serious or more competitive? Are people who deny themselves this possible advantage less competitive?

We know such a voluntary restriction would affect only a small number of games, according to your analyses, that would not be played. Are these games somehow the core of the competition that make it what it is?

Personally, given the choice, I would probably choose no TV restriction at all as I have not found a TV-only related pattern to winning or losing that applies to me (my win-rate being around 50% regardless what I play in the range of teams I play) and playing games with a higher TV difference can also be very interesting on both sides of the difference.

last edited by ugh

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

Why would it negate the competitiveness or its seriousness if people are willing to wait longer and play more fair matches (a goal TVPlus MM is supposed to achieve anyway) instead of playing more unfair ones? At the moment, it is very much dependent on luck who you are matched with (in the context of restricted choice of potential match-partners).

Lets call a spade a spade here - when we talk about "more fair" we're talking about "easier to win", since what people consider to be "unfair" are matches that they believe are too hard to win. The only way that the environment can be a serious competition is if everyone is equally affected by the variance in difficulty of matches within the context of the matching system. If you give people a method whereby they can deliberately reduce the difficulty of their matches as compared to the matches faced by others, you no loner have a serious competition.

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

Are fewer matches played that are more fair less competitive? I thought the fair matches were more competitive. Are longer waiting times less competitive? Where does the diminished seriousness come in? Are fair matches less serious?

It's competitive because its consistent. If people can opt out of standard variance it is no longer consistent. If people want to maximize their ability to compete at that point they need to engage in that same waiting behaviour in order to reduce the general difficulty of their matches and maximize their success. As you deliberately reduce the effect of variance on yourself you'll likely increase the effect of variance on others, too.

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

Are people who are willing to play more TV-skewed matches (naturally in some cases in the hope to be the TV-overdog more often than not) more serious or more competitive? Are people who deny themselves this possible advantage less competitive?

It's not about intention, it's about effect. People who deny themselves any potential advantage are less competitive in terms of effect. Choosing not to game the matchmaking to get easier matches would be a less effective strategy in the same way that choosing never to use inducements would be a less effective strategy.

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

We know such a voluntary restriction would affect only a small number of games, according to your analyses, that would not be played. Are these games somehow the core of the competition that make it what it is?

Even if you don't understand distributions you should be able to understand this in terms of averages. If you lop off the top values of a set, you don't just remove those values you alter the mean. In terms of distributions you compress the distribution horizontally and increase it vertically. Since this would not be a consistent application, it would compress the distribution for some people while leaving it uncompressed for others... lowering the mean difference for some people while leaving it higher for others.

The consistent distribution is a core part of the environment being consistent for all the participants, to the best of our ability to make it so.

For people who can't wrap their head around this, try this summary: for a competition to be fair enough to be called a serious competition, the matches need to be randomly assigned - people can't be allowed to game the system in order to give themselves easier matches.

@voodoomike said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

Lets call a spade a spade here - when we talk about "more fair" we're talking about "easier to win", since what people consider to be "unfair" are matches that they believe are too hard to win. The only way that the environment can be a serious competition is if everyone is equally affected by the variance in difficulty of matches within the context of the matching system. If you give people a method whereby they can deliberately reduce the difficulty of their matches as compared to the matches faced by others, you no loner have a serious competition.

Who would those people be that 'can deliberately reduce the difficulty of their matches'? The ones using the option to reduce TV or the ones not using it?

When I talk about 'more fair' I talk about that elusive 50% winchance that the MM system aspires to. How is that easier to win more often than if the variance is higher?

@voodoomike said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

It's not about intention, it's about effect. People who deny themselves any potential advantage are less competitive in terms of effect. Choosing not to game the matchmaking to get easier matches would be a less effective strategy in the same way that choosing never to use inducements would be a less effective strategy.

So, your argument here is that the people who deny themselves a high TV-difference or of using their allowed inducements and thereby handicapping themselves more than necessary should not be allowed to do so, even if they WANT it for some misguided reason or other?

Of course, this bad strategy will in turn advantage those in the competition who do not choose to do so, but if I play badly by choice, then the other people should have no reason to complain.

Or is this about those people who then will complain that they are only matched with TV-deniers and thus are disadvantaged against those who meet more of the non-TV-deniers?

Foremost, though, how is reducing the variance influencing the win-chance on average? Why is it handicapping those who would choose to do so? Didn't your analysis show that it doesn't, even though people think it does?

@voodoomike said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

for a competition to be fair enough to be called a serious competition, the matches need to be randomly assigned

Would still be the case.

@voodoomike said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

people can't be allowed to game the system in order to give themselves easier matches.

They wouldn't be.

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

Who would those people be that 'can deliberately reduce the difficulty of their matches'? The ones using the option to reduce TV or the ones not using it?

Clearly it is the ones deliberately reducing their TV differences during the early games of their team's development. It would be inherently advantageous to those teams to do so until their TV was a ways past the mean TV value for the environment at which point it would become advantageous to no longer limit their maximum TV differences.

That you had to ask at all suggests you're a long way off from wrapping your head around any of this.

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

When I talk about 'more fair' I talk about that elusive 50% winchance that the MM system aspires to. How is that easier to win more often than if the variance is higher?

The entire environment is going to be one large normal curve for each of the ratings we're concerned with. Each team represents a line dividing that curve in two, with the area on either side of that line representing the percentage of teams with higher or lower ratings. If you give people the ability to limit the rating differences more than others are limiting it, then it becomes inherently advantageous to do exactly that until your team's rating passes the midpoint, at which point it becomes increasingly advantageous NOT to do so.

When the environment affects all teams equally then even if there are aspects that are "unfair" they are universally applied and thus, everything is equal. When that is applied unequally you have not improved fairness you've reduced it further.

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

So, your argument here is that the people who deny themselves a high TV-difference or of using their allowed inducements and thereby handicapping themselves more than necessary should not be allowed to do so, even if they WANT it for some misguided reason or other?

Jesus you're dense. The advantage doesn't come from a high TV difference, it comes from having control over TV difference. The lower the mean difference, the better things are for you as you're building your team. When your team is well-developed and at a higher rating, that's when allowing yourself higher TV differences becomes advantageous because the likelihood that the high TV differences come out in your favour goes up as your rating does.

A system that allows people to choose their maximum TV difference and wait for a match with that difference or less creates an environment in which people who do NOT choose to wait for lower TV differences are at a distinct disadvantage during the team development phase. They are at the lower end of the rating curve and thus are more likely to be at a rating DISadvantage, making it inherently advantageous to wait for a lower difference. In doing so, they improve their chances of winning, while those who do not do so have reduced chances of winning.

Additionally, by taking the close matches consistently they are likely to leave only larger rating difference matches for the people who don't opt to restrict their maximum TV differences. This is massively exacerbated if the system gives priority matches to the coaches that have been queued the longest, as it currently does.

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

Would still be the case.

No, it would not. Different degrees of variance means the ultimate system is NOT truly random anymore, especially when you control the amount of variance. If I get to roll a d8 when I dodge and you only get to roll a d6 we're not being affected by the same amount of randomness anymore.

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

They wouldn't be.

Yes, they would be. You just can't understand why that is, and you're reaching the limits of my patience with trying to help you understand this particular topic. Thankfully people like Netheos and Dode, who actually have a say in what might or what absolutely will not be done with CCL, do understand.

@voodoomike said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

Clearly it is the ones deliberately reducing their TV differences during the early games of their team's development. It would be inherently advantageous to those teams to do so until their TV was a ways past the mean TV value for the environment at which point it would become advantageous to no longer limit their maximum TV differences.

So you're questioning your own data now? Interesting. I thought you established in your argument against fresh-team-protection that there was no advantage for reduced maximum TV difference for new teams.

@voodoomike said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

That you had to ask at all suggests you're a long way off from wrapping your head around any of this.

Since it contradicts your other findings, of course, I had to ask.

@voodoomike said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

If you give people the ability to limit the rating differences more than others are limiting it, then it becomes inherently advantageous to do exactly that

How does that advantage manifest? The choice of teams is reduced, the own advantage and disadvantage over the possible candidates is also reduced (in variance). That, in itself, gives no advantage, neither at the beginning nor later.

@voodoomike said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

When the environment affects all teams equally then even if there are aspects that are "unfair" they are universally applied and thus, everything is equal. When that is applied unequally you have not improved fairness you've reduced it further.

Nothing would be 'applied unequally' though. Everybody would have the same right to reduce/choose their TV restriction, according to personal preference (do they want smaller variance or higher variance). What's unfair about that?

@voodoomike said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

The advantage doesn't come from a high TV difference, it comes from having control over TV difference. The lower the mean difference, the better things are for you as you're building your team.

That is my question, though. You keep repeating that, though the evidence (provided by yourself, ironically) suggests that that is not the case. Unless I understood that wrong, then your argument against fresh-team protection would have been invalid. You can't have it both ways, either it is advantageous or it isn't.

@voodoomike said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

No, it would not. Different degrees of variance means the ultimate system is NOT truly random anymore, especially when you control the amount of variance. If I get to roll a d8 when I dodge and you only get to roll a d6 we're not being affected by the same amount of randomness anymore.

If both dice are used to generate a binary result, of course it would yield the same result. And that's what we're arguing about here.

@voodoomike said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

Yes, they would be. You just can't understand why that is, and you're reaching the limits of my patience with trying to help you understand this particular topic.

Ah, so you can't explain it (probably because it's not true) and regress to such weird meta-arguments (as you're wont to do).

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

So you're questioning your own data now? Interesting. I thought you established in your argument against fresh-team-protection that there was no advantage for reduced maximum TV difference for new teams.

Once again your inability or unwillingness to read leads to you trying to put words in someone's mouth. I didn't say there would be no benefit to new teams, I said there is no evidence that new teams require protection. Go back and read that thread until you understand it or possibly die of dehydration. Either one would suit me fine, though obviously the latter would be more useful to the community in the long term.

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

Since it contradicts your other findings, of course, I had to ask.

As usual, it only contradicts it in your misunderstood version of things.

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

How does that advantage manifest? The choice of teams is reduced, the own advantage and disadvantage over the possible candidates is also reduced (in variance). That, in itself, gives no advantage, neither at the beginning nor later.

Dear god you're a moron. Lets do this with pictures... I'll even leave plenty of room so you can colour them with your safety crayons once you fail to understand it once again.

Lets say that on a given day of CCL competition the mean TV for teams is 1200 with a standard deviation of 200. The protagonist of this story is a team that has a TV of 1100. This places the team in the following position on the distribution.

alt text

As the area under the curve represents the cumulative proportion of teams, we can see that there are more teams of higher TV than our protagonist than there are of lower TV. Since there is a restriction on maximum TV difference, the area from 1100 down to 600:

alt text

Is smaller than the area from 1100 up to 1600:

alt text

In raw numeric form, the percentage of teams between 600 and 1100 is 30.72% while the percentage of teams between 1100 and 1600 is 66.87%, making the general probability of getting a lower team 31.47% vs 68.52% chance of getting a higher TV opponent.

Now, what if we let people control their maximum TV distance? Lets look at the same situation, but with a maximum 300 TV difference. Now the percentage from 800 to 1100:

alt text

represents 28.58% of teams, while the percentage from 1100 to 1400:

alt text

represents 53.28% of teams, giving us final probabilities of 34.91% vs 65.09%, which represents more than a 10% increased chance of playing at a TV advantage as compared to having a maximum TV distance of 500. If we take that even further, and let people control their maximum TV difference down to, say, 100... the distance from 1000 to 1100:

alt text

Represents 14.99% of all teams, versus 1100 to 1200:

alt text

Which represents 19.15%, giving us the probability split of 43.91% vs 56.09%, which now gives a 39.5% improved probability of being paired with a team of lower TV as compared to people who leave their maximum at 500.

This trend then reverses once a team's TV goes past the mean, becoming advantageous to have larger maximum TV differences the farther above the mean a team's TV becomes.

If we gave coaches the ability to control their maximum TV differences we would be handing a mathematical advantage to anyone who opted to engage in TV difference control over those who did not. It's not "all the same", it is distinctly biased based on the metric distributions that punishes anyone who does not employ selective TV difference control if such a thing is available.... and this doesn't even take into consideration the removal of those closer matches from the pools and their effect on other queued teams.

Now, go get your crayons. Colouring in those pictures will be the first constructive thing you've ever done around here, Jacob... and this concludes my obligation to teach remedial thinking to the village idiot.

@voodoomike said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

I didn't say there would be no benefit to new teams, I said there is no evidence that new teams require protection.

Your denseness continues to amaze me. Why does anybody need protection? Ever? Because they're at a disadvantage otherwise they can't overcome by themselves. Thus, if there is no evidence that they need protection, and your conclusion is that they don't need protection, they can't be at a disadvantage to be protected from.

[Lengthy explanation of how TV-range restriction reduces the variance of teams met towards the 50/50 split - no one expected that result, no one!]

I'm sure you had fun doodling those things with your crayons.

I still fail to see any actual advantage manifesting here. You get to be the overdog more often but much less of an overdog at the same time (denying yourself the 10% of the easiest matches and at the same time reducing the number of hard matches by the top 3-4% in the 300 TV case) and that has (according to your findings in the other thread) no positive influence on the predicted win-rate (as far as I recall, it was actually the opposite).

So, cards on the table. How much is the win-rate positively influenced by a TV restriction of 300?

You can draw it with crayons, if that's your thing now. I don't mind.

last edited by ugh

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

Your denseness continues to amaze me. Why does anybody need protection? Ever? Because they're at a disadvantage otherwise they can't overcome by themselves. Thus, if there is no evidence that they need protection, and your conclusion is that they don't need protection, they can't be at a disadvantage to be protected from.

You're conflating "new teams" with "low TV teams". While new teams are more likely to be at lower TVs, the question of whether or not they need protection is not related to their TV, it is related to the number of games played.

The data shows no difference in the overall challenge faced by teams with low games played versus teams with higher games played while controlling for things like TV differences. For the idea of new team protection to be rational, we'd have to see new teams suffering a disadvantage related to their newness.

What we're talking about is not new teams, its low TV teams versus high TV teams, and the effect control of maximum TV differences would have on them... which is bad news for you trying to imply that I'm the dumb one in this conversation.

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

I still fail to see any actual advantage manifesting here.

Then you may simply lack the required intelligence to understand the topic. As I say, though, we're lucky the people in a position to make or promote change do not.

@ugh said in For the Nth time - LOWER TV Diff - Even optionaly:

So, cards on the table. How much is the win-rate positively influenced by a TV restriction of 300?

It depends on the team in question's TV, and the current distribution of active teams in the environment being played in - a fact that you should have understood from my picture-heavy explanation. Did you get distracted and start colouring them instead of bothering to read?

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