You might be a proponent who always wants to reinvent the wheel and encourages everyone else to do the same, but some of us just like to use the existing wheel thankyouverymuch.
Oh? In this situation it sounds like you don't want to use the existing wheel, and are asking mordrek to change the wheel so you don't have to do simple math... which bodes poorly for the more complex math that would be needed to actually analyze the resulting data.
If the fields are already part of a table that can be exported, an analyzing program can also run over these fields and do something with that input without having to do the same preliminary computation again.
There are an infinite number of potential fields that can be calculated using existing data - not all of them are worth building into the data source itself. If your analyzing program can apply math to the data, it can calculate simply derived fields as well whether those fields are present ahead of time or not. The point is simply that if you want to know those numbers you don't have to wait on mordrek.
I don't oppose the listing of TVPlus ratings, I'm simply saying that the bottleneck is not mordrek's implementing of their calculation and display - anyone can easily calculate the values from the data.
Also, eyeballing already has given me the ability to find 3 or 4 bugs in the mordrek pages in the last weeks alone, so it can't be all that bad ;-)
It's "all that bad" when it comes to analysis, yes. There's quite a difference between finding a mistake and applying mathematical inferences to data. That you don't understand that is troubling.
I'll ask to Cyanide about that.
You may want to wait until the admins themselves ask for the feature, since you'd never make the API available to non-admins, and what Ugh is pushing for is the ability to pressure them into doing things they have thus far refused to do manually.
Well, for this feature to be interesting, I think the same formula as the one in the game used for matchmaking should be used so that comparisons between TV-matchmaking and TVPlus-matchmaking can be inferred.
Via eyeballing? That's not real analysis. If you download the data (which mordrek already makes available) you can calculate these fields yourself - its what those of us who do actual data analysis do - and can then use those fields for those analyses.
You should also note that goblinSpy does not include data from a time before TVPlus matchmaking. Such data does exist, but is not available for comparison on the site.
All these features are already available through a web page accessible only to the admin team of the Champion Ladders and Cups. Except maybe the last one where coaches have to re enter in the competition manually.
API means Application Programming Interface, which, in short, means a system that allows outside software to use those functions without any human assistance. So while those features may be available manually for those admins, the OP is asking for the ability for outside apps to access them on those people's behalf.
The point, I assume, is so that programs can be created to automate some of the admin's duties that would otherwise be time-consuming manual work.... though I imagine it'd be a suggestion better received from one of those admins rather than someone who wouldn't have access to those functions in either case.
First "jackasses", now "asshole", what's the next step ?!
I'm sure it'll be genocide or something. Isn't that how slippery slope arguments work?
That's why adding rez will change things, even if you are right and nothing will change within a single game (at the pitch level).
It changes nothing mechanical at the match level. Environment obviously affects people's play decisions - people will, for example, concede more in COL than CCL because it comes with potentially higher penalties in CCL... and people will focus more heavily on winning in CCL because there's a potential reward for a high win rate... while in COL they're more likely to focus on protecting their players because there's no long-term reward for winning, but there's a long-term penalty for team damage, etc.
So here is a big difference I think everybody seems to be missing - rez is played differently from what we have now because it's different format and I am wondering if that format fits the current Ladder system.
We're aiming to change the play meta in certain ways... specifically by having more people feel comfortable playing a wider range of rosters, playing with less focus on protecting their players and more on winning matches, and feeling less reluctant to risk their team (new or otherwise) in later season matches. Those are all "how we play" changes that rez has the potential to affect, too. The rules of the match, however, do not change.
I'm not saying having a rez league is a bad idea, but the "lets remember that at the pitch level nothing changes" line is completely false.
As I say above, nothing mechanical changes... you guys are now focused on mindset, and that's swell, but people's mindset is different in various non-rez environments too, so we're not talking about a tangible difference, just a potential change in attitude.
You might know how forums work. You definitely don't know how a constructive discussion works.
Oh, is there an ISO standard on the topic? Do tell.
Luckily, I can choose to ignore unsubstantiated criticism like yours.
You could, but thus far you haven't.
What you're opposed to doesn't matter to me in the slightest, especially since you can give no reason why (or refuse to). The pause feature in principle accomplishes something for some people (maybe not you). You can accept that or continue in your wishful thinking that it should not accomplish anything for everybody.
I've actually given the reasons and repeated them - your inability to relate to them does not will them out of existence. The current pause system accomplishes nothing that the soft timer system wouldn't accomplish better. It's like you don't read whole sentences, just the first half of each.
You think because someone doesn't like the idea it's automatically bad?
No, it's "just because you think the idea is good doesn't mean it needs to be treated as such by everybody", and that's what you're expecting by declaring your thread to be "brainstorming" and expecting nobody to object to your ideas. If someone doesn't like the idea then it's automatically a bad idea to them, and they do not need to tell you ways they'd improve on your bad idea beyond saying you should scrap it.
I claim it could be and want people to consider it, either build on it or give actual reasons why it's a bad idea. All things you seem to be incapable of.
I considered it and told you why it's a bad idea. You're throwing a tantrum about it because you don't like opposition.
And again, another skill you should improve: reading and understanding. There is no desire of enforced game extensions put forth here. There is a desire of mutually-agreed-on game extensions. If one party doesn't agree, no extension of any second of the game. So, you're totally safe from all extensions if my idea would be implemented. If you didn't understand that until now (and apparently you didn't), maybe that made it more clear.
Boy, that's the pot calling the kettle black. I'll repeat, for a third time: I don't agree with enforced or formalized time extensions. You are not owed any more time than the rules of the game allow - it is already a very long game. If the other guy wants to give you a bit of extra time then he should be able to let your turn timer run past 0 for as long as he feels like it... and presumably you two talked about it ahead of time. He shouldn't be required to wait a certain amount of extra time... if he wants to give you more, he gives you as much as he feels like it, but every second beyond your <x> minute turn is a gift, not a right.
Yes, there is. People can lie and cheat and there is nothing enforcing a purely verbal contract. That's why such a contract isn't worth anything.
You should try that the next time you ask someone for a favour... have the favour written up as a document they have to sign and bring a notary public with you to witness it, locking that person into doing you that favour. I wonder how many favours people will agree to do for you once you start that habit up.
That's the description of the current implementation. What of it? It doesn't work and makes the feature with people you don't trust. What good is a feature you can't use?
You can use it just fine, you simply have to accept that the other guy is not obligated to give you more time, and that any time extension is nothing more than the other guy's good will. You're under the impression that it's more, and that informal agreements should be enforced at sword point. In fact, you think so little of people that you feel everything NEEDS to be formalized at every level.
The pause system in BB1 created a ton of headaches over its lifespan, and accomplished little to nothing.. we don't need to work our way back toward that. This is a multiplayer game and multiplayer games almost never have some general pausing system... people can walk away from the game, but it keeps going without them because it's not all about the one person. If you know you can't abide by your turn limits then don't queue up... if something more important comes up then go attend to it and don't worry about what happens to your video game. Beyond that, nobody else should be obligated to accommodate your life.
That's the problem. You have a good predictor of clearly bad matchups and then you choose that part of the predictor where you're (still) ignorant. If you'd use the predictor to find those matches which are clearly bad matches, using that predictor would make sense. Yes, choosing this method does exclude bad matchups that you know about. But following from that that the matchup that are chosen by this exclusion-method are better is utter hogwash. Any one of them can still be a bad matchup. You're just confusing a necessary and a satisfying condition.
Your incredulity is irrelevant. You can't "not understand" the facts away - we can pretty clearly see from the data that it works the way I say it does, not the way you say it does. There's quite literally no room for argument here.
It has nothing to do with ignorance or facts, but with feelings.
If your feelings don't match the facts then your feelings are misleading you. If you feel something is true when it is demonstrably not true, then your feelings are wrong. Feelings are not a compass you can use to find the truth while facts are. I'll leave you to worry about people's feelsies... I'm going to stick to the facts.
Again, you show your poor skills at analogies. Are icecream sales and murder rates something intrinsically entwined like a match and a concession? Can a concession precede a matchup in a game? Can a concession in a game cause the bad matchup of that game? The answer to all of these questions is: No.
Based on what we know about both pairings yes, they are equally "entwined" because both pairs correlate. You're simply dropping back to your usual argument from incredulity because you feel it makes more sense for one pair to be causal than the other. Again you are insisting that one must cause the other, and that because one direction makes no sense to you, it must be the other - that is a false dilemma, just as it would be if you tried to decide which of the ice cream/murder rate pairing was causal.
Maybe you should formulate things in more understandable terms when people ask you instead of dancing around the question, not answering it and just trying to show off your general knowledge of all things statistic.
I'm answering them clearly, and I'm cautioning you on the logical fallacies you're applying and are clearly about to apply. If you really thought I was lording my superior knowledge of the topic over you it'd mean you understand that I do, in fact, understand the topic better than you do... which, given your unending bickering, you clearly do not.
I mean, you could just have stated: Yes, there is a correlation. It is stronger in COL than in CCL. There is also a strong correlation to matchups with good coaches.
Except then I'd be saying something completely different than what I actually said. I never said the correlation was stronger in one league than the other, I said it was stronger pre-TVPlus. I didn't say "there is also a strong correlation to matchups with good coaches" I said there is a stronger correlation to concessions with matches to coaches with superior win records. There's also the strongest correlation to the conceding coach's own past concession rate. Conceders gonna concede.
What none of this supports is your idea that we should attend to TV differences, or that we should let people refuse matches especially in CCL. That's dumb beyond belief. If you want to "refuse" matches then pay in COL and concede like a bitch. If you want to play in CCL, deal with the fact that the only way we find the coaches worthy of playing in the champion cup is by making everyone play matches by the same rules, and not letting people cherry-pick their matches.
The amount of control is comparable.
Obviously, you are new to the concept of brainstorming. Maybe read up on it a bit before engaging in it.
I know how public forums work, and who gets to decide what is or is not posted. Maybe you need to spend some time pondering those concepts before you imagine you can declare your ideas to be "protected" from criticism and opposition.
You have not given any reason why you think it is a bad idea to improve the existing pause feature, just reasons why you think there shouldn't be a pause feature at all. Maybe you should open a suggestion about it and see how people like that one. Spoiler alert, they won't!
That's like saying that my opposing rape does not address your idea about raping babies in particular.
I am opposed to all formalized time extensions. I am not opposed to the existing pause system, I simply think its a dumb implementation - it accomplishes nothing more than the soft turn timer would, but with more moving parts and less versatility.
A good and constructive suggestion for someone like you who is opposed to pauses in general would have been to say that you can add a configuration that you always auto-reject all pause-requests. That would be an improvement on my idea.
Abandonment would be an improvement on your idea. You want your idea being good taken as given... it's not, nor will it be. You're going to have to live with that until such time as they put you in charge of the forum.
"Spoiler alert, they won't!"
A game of blood-bowl is long. Sometimes unforeseen real-life interruptions happen during such a long game. If both parties agree, it should be possible to allow for such things without having to abandon a game you might be engaged in. If that's something you can't understand, I can only feel sorry for you.
I understand all of that... but it does not support your desire for ENFORCED game extensions. If both people legitimately and enduring agree then there's no problem under the current system or anything like it. What you want is to take the choice out of both people's hands once the pause has begun. I think that's a bad idea in a multiplayer game. The two coaches agree until such time as they don't agree, and neither coach is entitled to more time than the game allows, or their opponent allows up until the moment they get sick of waiting on the other guy.
Okay, now you've lost me. If it is a 'poor predictor', isn't that equivalent with a 50/50 chance for either party and isn't that your professed goal is, i.e. making games fairer instead of skewed?
Oh I know I lost you... you were lost long ago on the Steam forums. Unpredictable based on us having NO information is not balance, it's ignorance. Unpredictable based on as much information as possible is the elimination of bias. That this has to be explained to you tells me you're going to remain lost.
If TVPlus can already predict that a game favours one party over another, why would you allow choosing a match that is clearly in favour of/biased towards one party?
We have matchmaking create matches with the lowest rating difference based on a rating that can best predict the outcome of the match... that creates the least predictable matches based on the most information. I'm not sure how this confuses you, or anyone.
Lets use boxing as an example. If we see from past fights that higher body weight tends to result in wins, then to create a more balanced match we try to pair up fighters of similar body weight. If we see from past fights that longer reach tends to result in wins, we try to pair up fighters of similar reach to create balanced matches. Through the miracle of math we can take that data and find how much weight a superior reach is worth, or how much reach a higher weight is worth, and we can create balance through a combination of the two, and so on.
What doesn't create balance at the match level is picking people completely at random.
It might also be a psychological problem of acceptance.
I think that IS one of your major problems, which is why you're forever arguing from incredulity. People's ignorance is not an argument against facts, it's an argument for people to shut up and learn the facts until they stop being ignorant.
I mean, I wasn't suggesting to use games-played-difference solely, but using it as an additional (weighted) criterion to minimize. How can that be worse than TVPlus only? It would just mean that if you have a choice between two similar TVPlus differences, you would look at the games-played-difference as well, so when you have two bad matchups, at least choose the one that people can accept more easily.
Cool, go do the math and come back with the results from the existing data supporting your belief. I've done the statistical regression and it says games played is not a significant contributor.
Can you give me an example how a concession can cause a bad matchmaking? I can imagine the other way, but not that. Or maybe you could elaborate how a correlation between something that can only happen after another thing can be confused with a 'causation'. Or is it that a lot of concessions can lead to worse matchmakings? How?
Ice cream sales correlate with murder rates. According to your usual garbage logic, one must cause the other... so tell me, which one do you think is the cause and which one is the effect?
What I did point out is that differences in performance rates more strongly correlate with concession rates, meaning that people were conceding more often when faced with better performing coaches than them, than they were when facing teams with higher TVs than them. You seem to have completely ignored that part of the story in favour of something you imagine you CAN argue.
Two statements that have no correlation/connection to me at all. You have no control now and you wouldn't have control then either. You would just exclude more unfair matchups, both for you and for others. In a competitive environment, isn't that what you strive for?
How do you not have more control over your matches if you can refuse them or if you can limit the types of matches you get?