I meant it as a conglomerate of the sentences:
Which pow of the two you have rolled do you choose?
Which push of the two you have rolled do you choose?
Which skull of the two you have rolled do you choose?
Otherwise, it would be an actual decision between different options. If there are no different options, time to make a decision is superfluous as the end-result will be the same in all cases.
Very good suggestions, also viable for pc. The number of times I accidentally clicked on the end turn button because it was too close to a square I wanted to click on ... in a crunch, that's deadly.
Also, it would be nice for pacing if all timers for non-decisions (which 'pow/push/skull' of the two you have rolled do you choose? which of the squares from the one that is possible that the opponent can be pushed to do you choose?) would be replaced by the only option being chosen automatically (of course, this only works for dice if no reroll is available, but that's often enough the case).
@ugh really, you deign´t play a good game at all, and I was playing with a crippled team.
BS, you were a highly developed Kislev team with several guard-catchers and +AG pieces vs. my almost-new ones, I was 220 TV down. Your team wasn't broken at all.
I didn't expect to win this, and it still could easily have ended the other way around (if my easier pass would have arrived and your harder one hadn't)
The problem isn't playing good or bad, the problem is that you have totally wrong expectatioins and throw all caution and social graces to the wind as soon as something doesn't go your way.
If not for your abusive chats, I would have actually enjoyed the game. As it was, I think you deserved what you got on your players.
Normally, I would have said 'bad luck', but after having played you (having been the 'other guy' in that match against the other Kislev), I know it's just kharma - you know what I'm talking about -
and pretty bad play mixed in with that, taking too many risky actions, exposing your vulnerable players to be easily hit.
Just so nobody gets confused about the actual luck in that match. You won it due to a +5 pass (without reroll) in combination with diving catch (+3 according to goblin-spy, I don't know why) after doing 2 gfis before the pass (and a +3+2 dodge away with the receiver before that), the rolls involved being 4-5-1(dodge-rr)-5-5-4-6-6
None of which supports the contention that you are better than them.
Stop insinuating that I have claimed that.
If you look at their performance, it starts to fall with the number of games played, i.e. their win-rate for the first 10 games is higher than for the next 10 games and so forth (while the ranks of their opponents more often include high ones). Mine, on the other hand, is pretty constant all through the season which is probably due to my more average opponent pool, or could be just one big coincidence.
Extrapolating from that, it doesn't seem likely they would be able to keep their high win-rate over a longer stretch of games which would naturally include more high-ranked opponents still or why should that downward trend suddenly stop?
Finding the absolute best pairings across all the coaches, all the teams they queue, and all the leagues... including all secondary exclusion or prioritization aspects, is going to be n!+ - it has to try every possible pairing of coaches in the pool, and every possible pairing of each coach's teams, finding the minimum rating distance for matched teams for each coach pairing, and then finding the smallest summed distance for every coach arrangement in order to find the "best" pool-wise group of matches.
No, it's not. For each tuple in the cartesian product, it is a quadratic algorithm to find out (in this special case) if there is a maximal matching and even to find the maximal number of matched coaches that fulfill the secondary exclusion/preference criteria. This is due to the linear total order of coaches on the TV scale. Thus, you would only get the worst case scenario if for all possible team-configurations in a single league, no maximal matching can be found - even though one team for each coach can be matched with at least one team of another coach (if not, that coach would of course be removed prior to the actual algorithm as it can have no possible partner).
If there were arbitrary exclusion mechanisms beside maximum TV-distance (Amazons not allowed to be matched with Dwarfs or something), you'd be right, of course, as then it would be just an instance of the arbitrary matching problem. Of course, your multi-league feature introduces just such an arbitrary additional mechanism, so in that case I can imagine lots of situations where the matching found by your algorithm will not be maximal. (I know, you don't care)
Also, I've never aspired to find the 'best' pool, just maximal pools without these weird disparities. Let's call the goal 'make everyone equally/comparably unhappy' instead of (what is being done now) 'making some people happy and some really unhappy'. This will lead to comparably lower TVplus variance to the current system with more matches being made. It will often not lead to the best of the maximal matchings.
Given that we have instances of 16+ coaches queueing in CCL alone, which is typically lower-traffic than COL, and we know that some people are absolutely queuing more than one team at a time... I think it's a poor and dangerous assumption.
Actually the resulting pools were smaller in COL than in CCL (last season, but that might be due to that COL CCL mixup).
Also, just think about the special BB case. The more teams are spinning, the fewer large TV gaps exist (statistically). The more people are multi-spinning (obviously with different TV-values to reduce TV-differences, as seems to be their goal), the higher the number of possible matches, ergo the higher the probability of a maximal match being found very quickly if the number of coaches/teams is more dense instead of sparse which can happen more in case of low spinning traffic. And the more matches are being made, the fewer people need to be prioritized.
Even so, pragmatically, you can always use another less brute-force algorithm (e.g. yours) as a fallback if the brute-force one didn't produce an acceptable result in an acceptable time-frame (if suddenly 100s of coaches start spinning simultaneously and a high enough number with multiple teams). Such techniques are known/necessary to be employed for computationally hard problems for which good heuristics exist but which sometimes fail.
So you're aware, I do a coach racial ranking (out of interest, and because it was a possible method of ranking if we were going to a Rez tournament) which uses all of the data from every match played by that coach of that race. So it includes all of Velihopea's Kislev matches, for example. Under that ranking he's still top, and still way above you.
I wouldn't doubt it for a minute. I don't claim to be better than the ranking I have. (And have repeatedly stated as much). But I would imagine the gap being closer, which is what I am getting at.