MrCushtie
Joined: Aug 10, 2018
|
 Posted:
Jul 10, 2019 - 07:49 |
 
|
My mistake, I was looking at Nelphine's  |
_________________
 |
|
smallman
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2019 - 08:51 |
|
My team reached 1530, but smashed down to 970 thanks to this silly matchup. So now my legend will carve up some weak teams. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2019 - 08:54 |
|
As you say. Your next match is likely to be rookies or someone else in permed hell with less player skills. |
_________________
 |
|
Joost
Joined: Mar 17, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2019 - 09:23 |
|
|
Chivite
Joined: Sep 04, 2017
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2019 - 11:46 |
|
so....
- "unfair" matches happen due to low number of players at off peak times...
- People avoid playing when certain coach is around....
- People that are new and don't know yet about certain coach's teams don't want to come back after facing said teams/coach
- As people don't come back it creates a gap in time where noone wants to activate, called off peak time...
I dont think the scheduler is the problem |
|
|
smallman
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2019 - 12:07 |
|
I dont work and don't need much sleep, so there is only 3 hours where you will never play vs me. I play about 1 game a day at random times. I am the product of a flawed system. I only playing my 2 killer teams until box is fixed. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
you drive away new players then complain there are no new players/teams to prey upon.
There's a word for that.
Perhaps you also want to think about a behaviour several differing coaches have recommended to me: Listing you as a friend to avoid activating when you are online.
And then there is your choice of activation. If you activated a team of far larger TV, it would mostly take the bigger teams and stop your smaller ones getting these match ups.
So there are at least three ways this is your own doing. Maybe look to alter one or more of those rather than expect to site to cater to your particular tastes of destroying newer teams no matter how you activate or play. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Harad
Joined: May 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2019 - 12:17 |
|
Aside from the fact that you have made threads on this subject before and so have had all these discussions before:
1) There is no issue with the matchup other than your interpreting it as silly. You are aware of how the scheduler works and try to design your teams to give you an advantage in most of the matchups it produces. It is an excellent feature of the scheduler that it does throw out matches that are not purely done by close TV. As such it encourages people to develop teams which are able to deal with whatever matchup is given rather than focusing us too much on the metagaming. Any scheduling mechanism will be open to exploitation somewhat, this is unavoidable, but not necessarily desirable.
2) You have stated that hourly matchups are the best several times but I am yet to see compelling evidence. What is your evidence? Alternatively, can you give me some indication of your logical processing power (academic achievements, business decision making history etc.) so that I can consider them against those of others and myself who think that the issue is far less clear cut. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2019 - 12:22 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | you drive away new players then complain there are no new players/teams to prey upon.
There's a word for that.
Perhaps you also want to think about a behaviour several differing coaches have recommended to me: Listing you as a friend to avoid activating when you are online.
And then there is your choice of activation. If you activated a team of far larger TV, it would mostly take the bigger teams and stop your smaller ones getting these match ups.
So there are at least three ways this is your own doing. Maybe look to alter one or more of those rather than expect to site to cater to your particular tastes of destroying newer teams no matter how you activate or play. |
Indeed. If only we had a blacklist in which we could put 1 maybe 2 coaches names max, that made it impossible to get drawn against them in Blackbox I suspect its popularity would grow if this was a thing.
Someone will no doubt say... "but this could be abused", personally I don't think it could if you only had 2 Black list slots to work with. Especially if there was a restriction in place that meant you had to wait 30 days to swap someone out and put a new name on there. In a similar way to how Sky sports App works; to prevent account sharing they limit the number of devices you can log in to. Then you need to delete a device from your list, and before adding a new device you need to wait 30 days. |
_________________
 |
|
smallman
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2019 - 12:30 |
|
ah lol so much negativity. I love playing with agility teams, and have done so a lot in the past, but we have a system that allows agility teams to get crushed by high TV bash teams, and you want me to just change. NEVER going to happen. System forces me to play only 2 killing teams. I am not the problem. If anything single activating high TV bash teams are, but I don't expect individuals to change, futile. I KNOW I won't change unless the system changes, yet you all seem happy to just watch fumbbl slowly die.
My logic is completely flawless. I am the worlds leading authority on Hanabi, a game of pure logic, with over 4000 games of it played. |
|
|
Harad
Joined: May 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2019 - 12:43 |
|
1) I don't think I've been negative. I've tried to be open. Apologies if you think it's negative. The only part of negativity on my part is saying that you've had these discussions before.
2) I don't see the system forcing you to play anything. I've played all races at a large range of TVs in the time you have been playing in the box and have achieved reasonable returns with all of them. I think you are implying that one cannot do 'well' unless deploying teams as you choose. This is clearly false is it not by the evidence of myself and others?
3) It's interesting that I know several people with achievements which suggest they are amongst the most logical people on the planet who think that your logic is extremely flawed (see point 2 above for example). In your position I would reconsider your logic as I think it is unlikely that you are more logical than these people. Is it possible that you are allowing emotions to intervene? Is it possible that someone is employing better logic and, when this happens its very difficult for us to perceive this? |
|
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2019 - 12:44 |
|
| smallman wrote: | | System forces me to play only 2 killing teams. |
It doesn't. Many other people aren't forced to do that. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
I am the worlds leading authority on people who type nonsense on the internet to justify their antisocial and self defeating behaviours and then mewl about the consequences in hilarious threads.
For the amusement of all:
hanabi is a cooperative game in which players try to create the perfect fireworks show by placing the cards on the table in the right order.
So you are a worlds leading expert on cooperative gameplay but here, despite constant feedback that you alienate new players, annoy veterans and massively make the problems of B worse, you say 'yes it broken, fix it to work as i wish or i will break it more'.
Again I really feel you need to look a word up and consider it. I'll go further than hint this time. the word is IRONY. But if further help is required maybe google the phrases 'just deserts' and 'hoist on his own petard'. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2019 - 12:59 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | | hanabi is a cooperative game in which players try to create the perfect fireworks show by placing the cards on the table in the right order. |
The amusing bit about that example was that it is not even that much of a logic focused game - the cooperative aspect destroys that. You don't see your own cards; rely on others to give you the correct information at an opportune moment.
That is - even if it requires logic ones reasoning can only be as good as the information you get when you get it - and one doesn't have any influence whatsoever on what data you get when. If your cooperative partners aren't good at that aspect no amount of thinking will help. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2019 - 13:07 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | Btw Nelphine, I went back and looked at the two box draws for your UW:
https://fumbbl.com/p/blackbox?op=scheduler&r=2019-07-08+00%3A45 (dorfs)
https://fumbbl.com/p/blackbox?op=scheduler&r=2019-07-01+12%3A45 (cdorfs)
On both occasions it appears the box went with the highest suitability scores.
Incidentally:
| Quote: | | This is a bit tricky to describe with a formula. Essentially, each race vs race matchup is tracked by the site for different TV levels and a ranking (calculated similarly to the win probability above) is tracked. This factor is applied to calculate the true win probability |
None of us really know what this is, nor do we have the exact data for it. But given years of minmaxing and cpomb, it's not entirely unlikely that some races actually have matchup biases that you wouldn't really expect.
eg. UW vs Dorfs. You'd never really want it, but in crp with access to a wiz, 2-3 cpombers+, babes, apoths, cards, this matchup would end up being a lot tighter than you'd think sometimes. |
That's interesting. I can't imagine that dorfs against any primarily stunty team (so, not lizards) is a fair match up, but the system thinks it's a better match up than high elves. I disagree completely of course - getting crunched always feels awful - but it could of course be the truth.
I dunno. Getting pitch cleared, or close to it, is never going to happen against the high elves, but it could absolutely happen against dorfs.
Obviously one of the biggest 'problems' here, is just the inherent difference in playstyle between agility and bash.
The biggest thing I miss about CPOMB is the absence of high tv orcs and dorfs. (I do hate me some orcs.)
You get people (like smallman) who don't want their teams destroyed, and so avoid playing fragile high tv teams - some take this to the extreme, and avoid playing fragile teams (presumably to avoid them growing into something that can be destroyed). In turn, people don't want to fight the killers at low tv without a chance to hurt back, and play bash teams. The bash teams survive, and survive, and then at high tv, end up being the cause for the people playing the killers. |
Last edited by Nelphine on Jul 10, 2019; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
| |
BB2016 Ranked, Leagu...
Search
