That's why people have been doing their best to fend off those who tend to be dicks from their communities, inventing all those sophisticated codes of conduct and rules, with appropriate punishments.
Hah, because you think it's the nice people who are typically in charge, or who do any of the "fending off" of anything in communities? What was the name of the hippy commune you grew up on, and how many wives did its leader have?
Historically people enact laws and conventions that forward their personal views on the world and which criminalize the lifestyle of those who live in ways they don't agree with. Even if the people doing that were the nicest folks around it'd still be codified intolerance. Remember that less than 100 years ago women didn't get to vote in the USA... less than 200 years ago you could keep other human beings as property. Less than 15 years ago it was still technically illegal to be gay in nearly half the states in the USA before the supreme court declared sodomy laws unconstitutional. Less than 50 years before that it was punishable by death in some states.
This worked pretty much fine until somebody thought that feelings of those who deliberately chooses to be a dick should be regarded at the same value as feelings of those who can control their dickness - probably because it sounds fair and full of justice, or some else equally retarded reason.
Heh, society always seems to be working just fine to the people who are in the dominant demographic. A whole lot of middle-class white men have no idea what all the fuss is about in the world today, for example.
Clearly not because it's practical and helps a community to maintain some standards in what it tries to achieve.
It's always a question of "who decides what's standard?", and the answer always boils down to "the guys with all the guns".
I don't doubt it, but parsing the replay files is something I don't have time to work through. I may give it a go at some later point in time, but it won't be in a hurry.
The point is simply that "we tried it and it doesn't work" isn't really the case... it's "we tried it but didn't succeed" is. I don't think mordrek is stupid (I've actually warmed to that guy and now hold him in positive regard) but he didn't nail the parsing when you two tried to make it work, is all... or you pooched the stats... but the former is easier to fail at (given that it involves attempting things never attempted before).
It comes down to this: if the replay files accurately and consistently reproduce the matches they are recordings of, and we can tell by watching a replay whether someone AFK'd or not, then it is necessarily possible to use the replay file to automatically determine if someone AFK'd. Doesn't mean it's an easy task, just one we know is possible.
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).
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.
There is an opinion that modern society is like that exactly because people started to care about some feelings too much.
There is an opinion that vanilla is the best flavour of ice cream... and one that the world is flat. People have been dicks since time immemorial, and widespread concern about people's feelings is a modern thing. Being dicks doesn't particularly mesh with high concern for other people's feelings, but it does with the inherent selfishness of people that we see in every society since we began recording history.
The problem was an awful lot of tweaking was required due to inconsistencies within the files meaning that particularly the last turns (the ones we were most interested in) appeared corrupted.
If the replay files manage to accurately reproduce the match then the replay files are not corrupted or inconsistent. What it means is that the parsing of the files was imperfect and that led to producing inconsistent output.
"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.
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.
It sounds like that it would be possible to identify afking with replay files then - only the pause function or connection issues may cause some problems.
I'm sure the pause function and reconnection stuff are listed in the replays somewhere since they'd register as visible actions on both people's screens... though I've never used the pause system. Even if it did not we could assume that legitimate use of those two systems wouldn't be a "no action every turn" thing.
Why is it not so easy to scrape all replay files? Where is the limit?
As I understand it from what has been said by the people who download them directly, Cyanide doesn't want their servers bogged down with tons of downloading. Relay files are at least half a meg in size for completed games (at least... often more) so taking any serious number of them would be quite the download, even assuming they're available in some batch-downloadable way.
Mordrek's site doesn't download them except when someone requests it - goblinSpy generally only works from match data with the option to snag recent replay files for certain leagues.
If it is not possible to download all, would it be possible to get a bunch? If it would be possible to get a bunch of them and check them for afking, it would at least be possible to do some statistics regarding the occurrence rates of afking
Seems like a lot of downloading and work for what... trivia? What does the rate of AFKing matter in the large scale? If we consider it a problem then we want to address it regardless of how widespread it is. You're welcome to hit up Cyanide for batch replay downloading, but you're still stuck with having to make a program to automate determination of AFKing in order to create a dataset to then investigate for what you feel to be "reliable" occurrence information.
What kind of timing information does it include?
Would it be possible to write a programm, which gets all replay files and checks for afking in them?
Replay files store individual actions taken during the game, so... every action you take that would alter the game state in any way (which would show the other person you doing anything) is recorded, and part of the recording is the number of seconds from the start of the match at which the action occurred, as well as which turn it was on.
It'd be possible to make a problem that took a replay file and looked for someone taking no actions during their turn and just letting the timer run out, yes. It's not so easy to just scrape all replay files off Cyanide's servers, though, and they only keep replay files for 7-14 days before deleting them to conserve space.
The obvious medium would be to let people submit complaints about facing an opponent doing AFK griefing, and submit the match replay file with it. An automated system could theoretically verify that AFKing had occurred according to the content of the replay file, and then signal a moderator with the relevant information in order to make a judgement call.
Why a judgement call? Well, we're talking about an XML file... one that people could conceivably edit. There needs to be some checks and balances in place to avoid that possibility (though, given the general technical expertise we see in this community I'm not convinced its a serious danger... I err on the side of safety).
That sounds far more reliable than just going by the columns of the data base, but I am not certain that this can be done so easily, I have no experience with the replay files, I don't even know where you can download them
I have never advocated using statistical analysis of match data exclusively to track down AFKers, simply as a means of investigation. While some people farcically believe in absolute certainty, the realistic path to handling these things is obviously going to be bayesian in nature; we take multiple things that suggest a phenomenon and let them cumulatively bolster our confidence in its existence.
Problem with this approach is, that it is quite common, that a coach just spams the end-turn-button in the last turns, if he doesn't want to play anymore. This would look like an afk in the replay
Replay files also include timing information so it's possible to tell how long they took before the turn ended. That's probably not available on onesandskulls, certainly, but someone spamming end-turn rather than waiting will result in a shorter match length which we can see in its record on goblinSpy.
Similarly, just using onesandskulls we can see if they only took no actions at the very tail end of the match or if it was constant throughout. Someone would have to decide how much AFK is too much AFK beforehand, and they'd use that as their method for differentiating between acceptable and unacceptable away-ness.
Didn't you suggest this activity score the last time?
I suggested the creation of an activity score for investigating the prevalence of AFKing, yes... since we have fields in each match record that cover how long the match lasted and various actions that each team can take. A calculated index based on dividing prorated action values by the duration of the match could give us a means of finding the most overt examples of AFKing, and could feasibly be used as another means of verification.... It's not guaranteed to find every example, or to never have false positives, but combined with someone reporting it as AFKing is probably more than reliable enough.
Even testing for deadly, communicable diseases has false positives and false negatives... but we don't use our inability to be 100% accurate all of the time as an excuse for doing nothing; when we do, we're really just trying to excuse our own laziness.
I think, the main question for the implementation of a punishment system is still the same: How do you identify games in which a person went afk?
I'd suggest the same thing I suggested back in 2016: you wait for someone to report it, have them submit the replay file, and then see how much activity the accused person did or did not engage in on a turn-by-turn basis. You don't need to watch the replay file, you can stuff it into onesandskulls and look at the roll log to see if someone is actually playing or not... and that's just one way to go about it if nobody is willing to further automate the method of investigation.
Now, as then, it has never been an issue of can't, it is purely an issue of won't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We're in the suggestions to Focus/Cyanide forum here. Your point is invalid. If they didn't want suggestions, they wouldn't introduce a forum to put those suggestions in.
That doesn't make my point invalid since my point was not "you shouldn't post ideas". What we have going on is a realistic discussion of the idea, and you're trying to answer anything people say with "this is my imagination, and I can just invent magic robots that circumvent any problem you see in the idea". The more magic solutions you throw in, the less realistic the idea becomes.
And if they have it, it is reasonable to assume they will act on suggestions they find valid, especially if they would not be hard to implement.
To date they have not automated the initiation or maintenance of the one-at-a-time CCL seasons, so by your reasoning it must not be easy to implement, as CCL is not just an idea in an ideas forum, its something backed by the Focus PR guy and which results in playing for actual cash.