Calculating Team Rating

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 5:57 am

Team Rating attempts to rate the team. Fine. How good a team is considered for the match = TR.

Now, there are certain problems, for example:
-Missing players effect the TR
-Money effects TR as much as a player that costs that much.
-All SPP's are ranked equal, regardless of the skills and skill combos gained.

With the NAF and the international ranking coming up, the changes in coach rating depend also on the TR's of the teams that are concerned in a match.
This makes the TR a lot more important thing than what it used to be. And under these circumstances I feel that the problems shown above can no longer be ignored. Extreme example: A coach with a crappy low-TR team plays a coach coaching a high-TR team, that just happens to have 8 players missing the game. The low-TR team wins and their coach gets a bigger raise to his CR than what more accurate Team ratings would give. He also got handicap for playing a severely crippled team!

I think we should all together try to develop a team ranking system that more accurately reflects the level of that particular team.
I'm not saying that we could devise a system where a TR100 Halfling team is exactly on an equal level with a TR100 Dwarf team. There is no pressing need for that, because every coach has a different coach rating for every race. But we should try to get somewhere near that.

We could have a separate calculation system for each race or a common system.

I prefer complicated over simple, but we can always put the complicated one to the "Advanced rules"-section, and leave the simple version to the basic rules section.

I haven't yet made a suggestion of my own. I was kinda hoping that we all could contribute to developing a better system for calculating the TR.

Some points:
-Scrap the 'starting team = TR100'-thing
-Missing players should be left out from the equation
-Money should have less effect (what about freebooters?)
-Formulas like those in the Team Power calculator that PH did would be nice... In which case it would have to be computerized, but I wouldn't mind.

Post by **Thadrin** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 6:15 am

Have to say I disagree entirely, apart from on money. I don't see the point of counting a team's bank roll for the purposes of Team rating.

Otherwise: you have 8 players missing the game? Tough luck. You have a load of SPPs that don't give skills? Tough luck. Its the way it is, and I think any methodology that tried to take into account absolutely every little thing - lets count niggling injuries. Lets count players who've returned from SI and lost stats. Lets let everyone get rerolls at 50k - then it would get hugely over complicated.

Bevan · Post by **Bevan** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 7:16 am

The NAF rankings will be mainly based on tournaments. So everyone will start at the same TR and if some teams progress better then it could be good coaching as much as luck.

If I'm silly enough to start a Tournament with a Wood Elf team and get 8 serious injuries in the first game (as usual) then I can't complain that losing the second game is unfair.

A different system may need to apply in leagues where the aim is (possibly) for everyone to have a challenging and fair game. Leagues may want to make their own House rules for such purposes if the current handicap system doesn't work.

Trambi · Post by **Trambi** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 8:57 am

In my mind, niggling injuries and missing players should affect the team rating.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 2:05 pm

Bevan: You're looking too much at the handicap issue.I'm not aiming at a system where any team could compete with any other one thanks to handicap. I'm simply aiming at a system that can evaluate a team more accurately.

Thadrin: I know I'm aiming at a rather complicated system. I'm not saying that everyone should use it - let them use the original version.
I started this topic to discuss how people would develop the TR system so that it would actually be a rating system that nearly accurately describes how good a team is. The current system does not do this, IMO.

And besides: even as it stands, counting the missing players is stupid. They're as useful as the money in the treasury. That's not handicap enough for you?

Sputnik · Post by **Sputnik** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 2:18 pm

And besides: even as it stands, counting the missing players is stupid. They're as useful as the money in the treasury. That's not handicap enough for you?

Mestari,

I don't agree on this point. If you have a dead player but no apo left, you can "bribe" your opponent for using his apo instead. So money is not that worthless and may have an influence.

But there is apoint in mainly playing tournaments. There, the TR won't differ much. How does that NAF Point system work then and how much does the TR affect the points to be gained???

Sputnik

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 2:39 pm

My take on this is that, given NAF rankings are based on who you beat and where, your NAF ranking will always be judged according to a level playing field.

Remember we're not ranking teams here, we're ranking coaches. Team Rating has little bearing on the outcome.

Marcus

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 3:31 pm

Marcus wrote:Remember we're not ranking teams here, we're ranking coaches. Team Rating has little bearing on the outcome.

I think the question is, what is Team rating actually good for.
In normal play, its a way of evening the odds a little between more and lesser developed teams.

But in competitive play ?

Not that i am saying its useless or bad or something. I'm just not sure what influence it should have on tournament play. If its only there to indicate team power, then team rating must be completely changed. If it is about the challange to have a team as powerfull as possible, rated as low as possible its more depending on the handicap table...

I vote NOT to include treasury, and missing players in TR, But ADD Freebooters with full impact. That means that hiring Griff Oberwald adds 53 points to your Team Rating for the game (18 Cost + 35 SPP).

I would also suggest to dropp the formula Star Player Points (SPP/5) and replace it by Star Player Rolls (SPR*5).

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:35 pm

Mestari wrote:Bevan: You're looking too much at the handicap issue. I'm not aiming at a system where any team could compete with any other one thanks to handicap. I'm simply aiming at a system that can evaluate a team more accurately.

If it has no bearing on the handicap system then what's the point? Are you suggesting teams start using 2 numbers, one that matters and one that doesn't? Yuck. Count me out!

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:19 pm

Marcus: but IIRC TR is found in the formula for the coach rating change, so I wouldn't mind having a more accurate TR system for the NAF rating purpose as well.

wesleytj: I'm not saying that this wouldn't have any impact on handicap. As handicap is calculated by TR, this would only result in more accurate handicaps. And by this I don't mean that this should put all teams to the same level.

Everyone:
I simply wanted to start a discussion about how we could calculate team ratings more accurately to reflect a teams capabilities in a match. Then I suddenly get many responses that are against the whole idea?!?

What are you exactly against? Evaluating a teams capability accurately? Surely you would then support random TR's for each match

Toby seems to be the only one who tries to contribute to the discussion on how we could/should rate teams in a fashion that's more accurate.

christer · Post by **christer** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:41 pm

Ok, fine.

Here's how the NAF rankings will work:

Calculate the K value:

For tournaments:
K = round(2 * sqrt(number_of_teams_in_tourney))
For stand-alone games or online leagues:
K = 2

Set a Result variable:
R = 1.0 if you win
R = 0.5 if it is a tie
R = 0.0 if you lose

Calculate win probability:
P = 1.0 / (1 + 10^(dCR/150 + cTR/70))

dCR = {your Coach Rating} - {opponent Coach Rating}
dTR = {your Team Rating} - {opponent Team Rating}

newCR = oldCR + K * (R-P)

You mathematical minded people will see that 7TR is equivalent to 15CR for ranking purposes.

Also note that each coach will have a separate CR for every race.

-- Christer

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:44 pm

Just an added note, the number of players in the tournament is the number of NAF players. If there are 100 players and only 4 of them are NAF ranked, there's no way for us to know the relative ranking of the other 94, so we can't rank those games.

christer · Post by **christer** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:46 pm

Oh, right.. I just assumed everyone would join? I mean why shouldn't they?

-- Christer

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:00 pm

Yah ... free dice ....

Galak

dakkakhan · Post by **dakkakhan** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:19 pm

Treasury = It's purchasing power baby!!!

If I have 100,000K in my treasury and you:

1. kill my minotaur, I buy another one!
2. Kill a lineman, I buy another one!
3. Tick me off, I place a bounty on one of your players!
4. Don't do Jack, I buy whatever I want (apoth, reroll, lineman, whatever)

That is a powerful advantage and certainly ought to be part of the Team Rating. Money is power in bloodbowl, same as eveywhere else. AND Now you can't lose it to a CARD, so suck it up and deal with the handicap of having it there.

Talk Fantasy Football

Calculating Team Rating

Calculating Team Rating

TR may not matter for international rankings