'Fixing' domination of certain teams in cyanide

[dode74]

I guess I'm just curious as to why you wouldn't match on TVPlus, or even on Win Factor (W-L) as opposed to games played. I get why the inducements work the way you describe.

Past a certain level of development the ratio of TV-to-effectiveness is going to drop off, but the amount of effectiveness that the bloat provides your opponents will not, making it the best strategy to streamline and optimize rather than develop ad infinitum.

Obviously that's going to be team-dependent, since some teams can do very well by simply taking more skills up to the limit (Block, Tackle, Claw, MB, PO, Guard on every Chaos player, for example, and your previous Box analysis showed no hint of an impending dropoff for Chaos in particular) but I think it would make for a rollercoaster ride for teams attempting to streamline with optimal mid-range efficiency: their "ideal" path would be from below-optimal efficiency, through optimal efficiency, then diminishing returns and firing the most "bloated" players to get back to the start of the curve. The management aspect would be when to fire and who in order to maintain efficiency.

[VoodooMike]

I guess I'm just curious as to why you wouldn't match on TVPlus, or even on Win Factor (W-L) as opposed to games played. I get why the inducements work the way you describe.

Partially it's efficiency, and partially it's a preference for variation. Games played will start off matching people primarily on relative TV, which in the very first game or two is a superior predictor to performance since there simply hasn't been any performance to measure. Additionally, zSum (aka Win Factor, aka Wins minus Losses) represents the largest portion of TVPlus in the long run, so matching by TVPlus or zSum also reduces the amount of inducements we're going to see in play and does not give us the minor benefit of the reduced use of performance measures for the earliest matches.

As you say, it doesn't much matter what, if any, matching criteria is used after a certain point.

Obviously that's going to be team-dependent, since some teams can do very well by simply taking more skills up to the limit (Block, Tackle, Claw, MB, PO, Guard on every Chaos player, for example, and your previous Box analysis showed no hint of an impending dropoff for Chaos in particular) but I think it would make for a rollercoaster ride for teams attempting to streamline with optimal mid-range efficiency: their "ideal" path would be from below-optimal efficiency, through optimal efficiency, then diminishing returns and firing the most "bloated" players to get back to the start of the curve. The management aspect would be when to fire and who in order to maintain efficiency.

When Australia was first colonized the british settlers brought rabbits with them to breed for food... naturally some managed to get loose, and by the mid 19th century they were so numerous that they were a genuine threat to agriculture and were causing mass death of indigenous species. Now, there are two ways you can explain that outcome... first, it's possible that rabbits are simply the master race and they will one day share the scorched earth with the cockroaches due to their incredible ability to survive and thrive.... or you can posit that australia just happened to be an incredibly rabbit-friendly environment... the temperatures were moderate so they could breed year-round, and they lacked efficient natural predators able to sufficiently cull their numbers.

We don't know for sure if Chaos (as our prime example) is the apex predator or if it is just very well suited for that environment (Open play, TV-matching, full attrition.. at high TV ranges). My personal suspicion is that they are like the rabbits, and that in an environment of vastly improved racial diversity their performance curve will be much more shallow, and bounded. Even if it turns out it isn't, we know TVPlus would handle it... and high development Chaos play would involve dodging a lot of fireballs.

For teams trying to do development optimization, as you were saying, it is true there would be a constant roller coaster... but that's the exact same roller coaster that already exists in the game in any long-term play format. The main difference is that coaches would have to make a conscious decision to fire players and start developing a new one, rather than just waiting for one to die of unnatural causes.

[dode74]

Why is it more efficient?

matching by TVPlus or zSum also reduces the amount of inducements we're going to see in play

I suspect, from talking to a lot of people, that they would prefer that to very large inducement gaps.

I also suspect that Chaos are suited to a high-TV, TV-matched environment, but if inducements are being given out through TVPlus then the TV efficiency of the team is at least a part of that factor. Since you've shown that in a TV-matched environment Chaos continually improves in efficiency, we can posit that Chaos will, at the point where everyone is level 7, have the most efficient TV part of zSum (and the goal of any team is to reach that most efficient point). We can also say, if Chaos' efficiency doesn't drop off, that their continual improvement curve will be very different to the curve of all the other teams which are subject to the "rollercoaster" and that if they are shown to be most efficient at that point there is no incentive to ever fire a player, the decision to do so being a large part of the team management part of the system you suggest. Sure, you'd be hit by a lot of wizards, but they're as random as any other incentive. It'd be interesting to see how it works out, for sure.

[VoodooMike]

I suspect, from talking to a lot of people, that they would prefer that to very large inducement gaps.

Could be. I'd say we leave it to the discretion of whomever decides to implement the system... which is to say, probably nobody ever.

I also suspect that Chaos are suited to a high-TV, TV-matched environment, but if inducements are being given out through TVPlus then the TV efficiency of the team is at least a part of that factor. Since you've shown that in a TV-matched environment Chaos continually improves in efficiency, we can posit that Chaos will, at the point where everyone is level 7, have the most efficient TV part of zSum (and the goal of any team is to reach that most efficient point). We can also say, if Chaos' efficiency doesn't drop off, that their continual improvement curve will be very different to the curve of all the other teams which are subject to the "rollercoaster" and that if they are shown to be most efficient at that point there is no incentive to ever fire a player, the decision to do so being a large part of the team management part of the system you suggest.

I think it is monumentally unlikely that the most efficient spot for any roster is going to be at the point of maximum development. Even with Chaos I don't imagine the efficacy difference between a team of level 7 players and a team of level 6 players is going to be equal to the difference between a team of level 5 players and level 6 players, for example. If it turns out that they are then that's fine too... and yes, it would mean far less TV management for such teams, but it wouldn't change the overall balance of the environment.

I suspect that, given the option, many coaches will never fire a player anyway, even if it means sub-optimal TV efficiency. Since that doesn't negatively impact OTHER players in terms of performance, it's not so much an issue as a playstyle choice. If you want a team full of snotling legends... well... power to you I guess. If anything, I'll be amused when matched with that team, even if they subsequently beat me.

Sure, you'd be hit by a lot of wizards, but they're as random as any other incentive.

And yet, it would still balance the matches out against them in the long run, no matter how random things are, owing to the fact that it is an unbounded sliding scale that is moved by the performance of a team. That's the beauty of TVPlus... it doesn't matter if inducements are unreliable, or overpriced, or some rosters are better than others... it all comes out in the wash.

[dode74]

it wouldn't change the overall balance of the environment

A team which is able to play at its peak efficiency every game, unlike other teams, won't alter the balance?

it all comes out in the wash.

Eventually. It'd be interesting to see if only because people would probably stick with teams longer.

I get and like the things TVPlus does. I don't think I would choose to play in an environment where attrition wasn't a factor, but that's a matter of preference; that itself would mean treasury had meaning. I also think matching by WF to reduce the inducements amount would be preferable simply to reduce the overall randomness and keep it as much about the team and coach as possible. To that end such an environment wouldn't be for me.

[VoodooMike]

A team which is able to play at its peak efficiency every game, unlike other teams, won't alter the balance?

Nope. All teams in a TVPlus based environment are going to experience some rating oscillation... the better you perform, the higher your rating goes, and your team + coaching skill will only be enough to reliably maintain a certain rating (which is your true rating)... when your rating goes higher than that, you'll be facing challenges you can't reliably surmount, and your rating gets pushed back toward your "true" rating, and so on. Whether teams engage in firing to decrease TV bloat or not, it will simply affect that expected oscillation, and be absorbed by it.

I get and like the things TVPlus does. I don't think I would choose to play in an environment where attrition wasn't a factor, but that's a matter of preference; that itself would mean treasury had meaning. I also think matching by WF to reduce the inducements amount would be preferable simply to reduce the overall randomness and keep it as much about the team and coach as possible. To that end such an environment wouldn't be for me.

While I can certainly understand personal preference, the retaining of attrition would negate a lot of the benefits of a TVPlus environment - especially the demographic distribution improvements (which was the original problem this thread sought to solve). Bashy teams would still be less prone to losing players, and if anything, a TVPlus environment is going to be harder on a team that suddenly loses several players as the sliding scale will take longer to react to the loss in team efficacy than would a simple measure of team strength like TV. The result would almost certainly be a larger proportion of teams that are less likely to suffer such sudden reversals of fortune, much like we already see in existing mm environments.

Attrition makes the most sense in the original context of the game, where you have a bunch of guys who know one another playing as a league. In large scale play involving strangers, you're mostly going to see negatives... both mechanical and social. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy it anyway, but it does mean it's going to cause issues (like our present demographics issue) and a lot of bad blood. I don't think it's worthwhile given the drawbacks, but to each their own!