Ed. Scott Emery yobbo@shell.portal.com
Contents of this issue:Letters to the Editor: More Important Questions
Words of Wisdom/Pontification: Mel clues us in on the Interim Simulator and I go overboard.
Forum: Evan strikes back...
Favorite Mistakes: the Eternal mobile replacement question
Random Thoughts: Wait, I will think of some...
After perusing the WBRG cable service it became clear to me that new manager Craig Ferguson, of the Victorian Mandarins, had chosen to work with a small team.
> > I take it that you are going the "smallest possible team" route.. > >Scott Emery >TOW Editor >yobbo@shell.portal.com > >I am. I think I'll add one or two more players in the next couple of weeks to cover injuries, then see what happens. If I don't get a free agent this week, I'll probably be asking you about 'Digger'.
Seriously though, I can get an average skill increase of about 3.5 per player per week with the small roster while keeping my fatigue down. The only other strategy I thought of was the 'crank rookies with one or two coaches' route, but then the players who actually take the field really don't get developed very much. As the schedule places my team in a position where we don't play the better eight teams until late in the season, I think the small team approach gives me a chance of taking it all in silver. I guess I'll probably still have trouble with those !$!W#^& Borg. Why didn't Capt. Picard wipe them out when he had the chance!
PS. In the back issues of TOW, I saw that the IC players were considered fairly safe from injury. Last week, Buffalo took out Piaw (age 3, fatigue 4). Then they took out his replacement Moi (age 0, fatigue 4). I was thinking I should offer Buffalo lots of SPARF bucks for his defender at that position, but when I looked, he was just an 'A A A V' type grunt. Hmm.
Craig Ferguson Victorian Mandarins
--
This issue's Words of Wisdom has been merged with the Pontification section as Mel tells us about the intermim (Note: a lot of this article is shamelessly lifted from email with Mel.) (Not all of Mel's clarifications are attributed.)
The point of the game is to get the ball between the tall posts on the end of the field. So the next question is how does one move the ball around? The answer is handpasses, kicks, and marks.
A kick is literally that. One's kick score (vs.?) affects it. One can kick on goal or to another player. Only a kick can result in a mark.
A handpass is executed with a single balled fist and is also called
"punching" the ball. This doesn't go as far as a kick but is more likely to
be caught (by the intended receiver). [Numbers Mel?]
>1.5 meters is the smallest granularity of position in sparf (except for
>shots on goal). The theoretical max is 5 of these units for the ball to
>be caught (though with roll the ball can travel much farther until someone
>grabs/kicks it)
One can grab the ball as it rolls along the ground or one can "mark" the ball, or catch a handpass.
A mark signifies that the ball has been in the air since it left the originating player kicked it. The one who marks a ball gets a free kick either to another player or on goal. The kick must be at least 10m long to count. Note that in SPARF one can't handpass a ball far enough to mark it. I expect that this reflects an explicit rule in ARF. (Of which I am woefully ignorant!)
>Actually, there is a bug in the interrum simulator where a teammate will
>take the "free kick" following a mark in place of the player who made the
>mark (the kick is taken from the correct place, at least). I've decided
>against tracking this down in favor of giving more time to the viewsim.
All of these actions take place in a virtual reality (so sue me) governed by the SPARF simulator. Mel recently changed the simulator from a difference based engine to a ratio based one... I refer to all instances of the difference based simulator collectively as the "old" simulator. The one that is currently active is the old one tweaked a little bit. In addition to the aforementioned change, Mel has decreased the reaction range of the mobiles which reduces their impact. Mel plans a more ambitious rewrite that will include the features mentioned in last issue
>#1: 2*scramble-off+mark-off / 2*(scramble-off+defense-def)+mark-off+mark-def
>(the -off and -def indicate which player, the - is not subtraction)
>#2: mark-off/mark-off+mark-def
>#1 is used for trying to not get splatted when getting rid of the ball
>#2 is for making a mark
>There are also some different equations for ball ups and loose balls, but
>they are not as easy to show, as there are many more results
I interpret the above to mean that #1 is your ability to muddle on through and #1 is your ability to break away (dependant on your kick, of course). From examining my games I have come to the conclusion that #2 is damped considerably somehow...
the old formula are: #1: 2*scramble-off + mark-off - (2*defense-def + mark-def) #2: mark-off - mark-def The difference is used as an index into a table of odds and is damped around 13.
>The team with the ball is on offense if it is being carried.
>The team who just made a pass/handpass is on offense unless the ball is in
>the air too long, in which case the concept of offense ceases to have effect.
Once the concept of offense ceases to have effect the equations for a loose
ball take over.
Initial position (some comparison of scram, mark and defense)
>Degree of success on previous (recent) rolls.(effect is by a temporary
>boost/penalty to effective skill.)
Under the "old" simulator the basic equations of SPARF... were based on the differences rather than ratios with 13+ being a "cap" on the resultant chance of success. This led to an injury to a top player (I have chosen a RKM type player) being uniformly catastrophic across all skill levels. The ratio quality of the "interim" simulator means
Mark Chance 20 15 15 20 Ted Chance 40 35 35 40 Bart Chance 60 55 55 60 Mark Hurts 15 10 10 15 Ted Hurts 35 30 30 35 Bart Hurts 55 50 50 55Chance vs Chance: Mark Ted Bart Mark Ted Bart old#1:-10 -10 -10 old#2: 0 0 0 new#1: 45 47 48 new#2: 50 50 50
Chance vs Hurts: Chance old#1: +5 +5 +5 old#2: +5 +5 +5 new#1: 52 53 50 new#2: 57 51 52 Hurts old#1:-25 -25 -25 old#2: -5 -5 -5 new#1: 36 44 46 new#2: 42 46 47
Using the formula above I have calculated the base percentages for the first game of the season between the Borg and the Buffalo Knights. I have incorporated the percentages into my SPARF Pretty Printer output (by hand! aughh!...) in the following manner
Knight name Borg name #2kngt #1kngt POS X X X X POS X X X X #2borg #1borg
#2borg is the range of base percentages calcuated from formula #2 varying from the one most advantageous to the Borg to the one most advantageous to the Buffalo Knights. On average there is a spread of 10 points in the range... As I analyze my own games with the advantage of knowing my own roster, I note a spread of 4 to 6 percentage points.
TOP: Buffalo Knights BOTTOM: The Borg John DeLarge John Jourgenson John Notebook Unit 25 Unit 14 Unit 3 50-58 38-49 g 1 34-44 37-48 g 39-49 42-54 g LFP G G G V m FF A V V G m 1 RFP G A V G m RBP d2 A R G T w FBi0 d4 V R G T w LBP d3 V A V V w 1 49-41 49-39 p 65-55 57-49 p 60-50 60-50 p 1 John Guccione John Boyer John Stone Unit 3 Unit 2 Unit 4 39-49 39-49 g 1 39-49 39-49 g 28-39 32-42 g LHF G A G A m CHF G G A G m RHF M A A R m RHB d1 V V V V w 1 CHB d1 V V V V w 1 LHB V G V V w 2 60-50 63-53 p 60-50 60-50 p 1 71-60 75-65 p John Hefner Dali 'Manx' Khat John Tommy Unit 32 Adam Sweeney Unit 34 34-44 34-44 30-37 43-52 39-49 36-46 LW A A A A m C G A G G m 2 RW G A A A m RW d2 V G G V m 4 C d2 O T T M m 1 LW V A G V m 1 65-55 61-52 69-62 67-59 60-50 59-50 John EraserHead John LiquidSky John Origami Unit 33 Audrey Horne Unit 1 34-44 55-70 g 2 30-37 34-42 g 4 24-32 26-36 g 1 LHB d1 A M A G m 3 CHB d1 G G M G m 1 RHB M R M G m 1 RHF V V G P w 1 CHF O T V A w 1 LHF T G G V w 3 65-55 62-52 p 1 69-62 64-55 p 1 75-67 61-53 p Craig Smith Herzen 'Blutlich' Herzo John Tapestry Unit 22 Unit III-1 Unit 26 34-44 51-63 g 2 25-32 45-55 g 4 34-44 59-73 g 2 LBP d1 A A A V m 3 FB d2 A G V V m 2 RBP A G G G m 1 RFP V G V L w 1 FF O T V M w LFP V G V P w 1 65-55 59-46 p 2 74-67 62-51 p 65-55 62-52 p 1 John Mary John Barker John Oglvie 39-49 38-49 g 4 38-49 38-49 g 1 38-49 32-41 g 2 ROV d2 G V V V m RKM d8 V V V V m 1 RKR d4 V G G V m 6 60-50 61-50 w w 3 w 1 p 3 p 3 p Unit II-1 Unit 5 Unit 6 65-55 61-50 g 3 61-50 61-50 g 5 61-50 64-54 g 6 ROV d4 V T T T m 4 RKM d2 T V T T m 6 RKR d2 T T O O m 3 w w 1 w p 2 p 4 p 5
In one important respect this is a lousy game to analyze. The Knights were smooshed by the Borg using the second strategy. They were wildly out- pointed by the Borg in every position. The counter to that is training and trading with next season (or the season after) in mind, no tactic will help here. There are some interesting features to the analysis that deserve to be pointed out...
One is at the Center position: Dali 'Manx' Khat Adam Sweeney 30-37 43-52 C G A G G m 2 C d2 O T T M m 1 69-62 67-59
According to my analysis Adam has about twice as good a chance as Mr. Khat to pick up a mark. What has probably happened here is that Adam set up his RKM (who has 5 to the Knight's RKM's 1), but that is a wild guess. Notice that even though Dali shouldn't have much of a chance to initate a breakaway (mark the ball), if his team is on offense he has a decent chance of keeping it going... This is mostly due to Adam Sweeney's mediocre defense. If the Borg has the offensive reigns (by turning around a ball in the backfield), the Center is pretty much a roll-through.
Another is at one of the pockets:
Craig Smith
Unit 22
34-44 51-63 g 2
LBP d1 A A A V m 3
RFP V G V L w 1
65-55 59-46 p 2
The amazing thing about this matchup is that the summed point values (on average) are comparable. Craig ranges from 94 to 115 and Unit 22 ranges from 94 to 120 in summed point value. The deficit here, as it is all over the field, is in the mark as the statistics show. What the statistics don't show is how many shots were taken away from Unit 22 and sent back upfield.
In ToW 3.1 , you said [Ed. note: from FAVORITE MISTAKES]:
> I did the conservative thing and pulled
> my (fourth year) star FF into an IC slot to cover injuries. I lost that
> game by one point. (this was not tanking, I intended to win, this was
> conservative play) Would I have won the game if Dawn was on-field. Yes,
> unless one of my mobiles was injured. My point? In the *critical* games
> it just might be better not to prepare for an injury, but to go all out.
> Opinions?
I think it depends on how evenly matched the two teams are (and this season the new simulator will make more teams "evenly" matched). If you're expecting a comfortable win (or loss), removing one player shouldn't make much of a difference to the result. However, if it's going to be close, it isn't surprising that removing your fourth best player is fatal.
I played my best 18 on the field every week last season. I had very few players with multiple VGOOD skills (especially early in the season) and decided that the chances of losing as a result of an injury were less than the chances of losing without (one of) my best players. Luckily, none of my age 4 mobiles were ever injured, despite carrying fatigue levels of 7 at times (although younger, less fatigued, players on the half forward flank were...).
Of course, this could all be solved by a more sophisticated interchange/replacement mechanism. At least one of these was described an old ToW, and another (more complex) one was posted to the kibitz list during the break.
BUT FIRST, A WORD FROM OUR SPONSORS
Do scouting reports look like gibberish? Is it too hard to find _your_ game in the results file? Are you sick of wading through rawstats files? GameStats is for you!
GameStats collates information from all three of these file types and presents it in an easy-to-read format!
GameStats produces slick football field shaped output in wide (Xterminal) or short (80 column) mode with abbreviations for all the players' skills! All statistics are reported in full (including injuries)!
Example (partial) output (80 column mode): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Al Epstie Ty Tannic Bruno Ramos 5 AGGP 0 5 1 0 0 5 GGVL 0 5 2 4 4 3 AAAM 0 2 2 3 3 Rocky Rhodes Relbin Irons Vitmar Barhacha 5 AAAV 2 0 0 0 0 4 AAAV 1 0 0 0 0 5 AAAV 1 0 0 0 0 i2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All you supply is the scouting report, results and (optionally) rawstats.
Support is second to none! Should rawstats change (again), an updated version will be sent to you, upon request, free of charge!
To obtain this amazing program complete the unattached order form and send it to:
evan@cs.mu.oz.au (dingo)
{\microfont
[Ed. note: Several of my alter-ego's players have enough eccentricities to fill a hundred characters... It was enough trouble cutting them down to thirty or so. The Sparf Pretty Printer now handles that problem by truncating the name at twenty-three characters (other values optional). Any name not unique by the 23rd character deserves to be confusing]
Well, I lost a game, lets see if we can figure out why. One, my favorite player wasn't on the field, owing to a badly stubbed toe. So I pulled an inferior player (Rex would be sore to hear that!) up from the front line, and dropped my IC2 (2F'ed to that slot) into his place. So I had my RKM (as usual) and moved my least effective mobile to ROV bringing the new guy in as RKR. I have been vacilating back and forth regarding the relative value of RKR and ROV (the answer is "it depends", I just don't know what it depends on) and I guess that for my setup RKR is more important.
My front line didn't help a lot either... It has been my standard practice to put my fourth best player in as Center. I now think that I should have put my 6th or 7th best (mark-happy) player in and free up that fourth best for the front line.
I haven't had the time recently to give you a better analysis of that game (it would be a good game to analyze, suprising result and close score), perhaps I will present it in a future TOW.
Random thoughts, by definition, should be easy to have. My thoughts seem to have become shockingly linear of late. Someone asked me why a Gold player would want to write down all their SPARF "secrets" and publish them. The other Gold players who have written for TOW will have to asnwer for themselves. I do it because I don't think that SPARF should be a game of "secrets", I think it should be a game of decisions. There are several ways to play SPARF successfully, but all of them require attention to the basics and the basics should be documented. How many of you are with me on this?
Please send me email describing what you what to see in TOW, or if you really want to see it, write it up and send it along. The more stuff I get the more TOW you get.
Scott Emery TOW Editor yobbo@shell.portal.com