Post by eric on Oct 1, 2018 19:02:38 GMT
eric skrouse fason AngryKing 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑
TimPig h7t trofie kn88 Mike Taco: Better than a Nacho
Druce 👼Saint Panktrick's Day👼 wee2dee ahebrewtoo IanBoyd duc15
Muzunga Majic dump jhb Norman Dale pedro el guapo
andrewluck cf3234 mj yawn jeezy soup
breauxcaine sugarshaun Buster rv avogato
dagrizz Mike rw troybarnes ryanr bigdaddycool
baller4ever sheezy29
We've been kicking around the idea of revamping FA in shout and with Odin. There are two basic proposals I think could go a long way.
.
1. Macro FA
-use spreadsheet to make sure all bids are legal
-use spreadsheet to convert them all into an AHK macro
-use macro to enter all the bids into the software
-continue running FA in software itself as normal
2. Outside FA
-devise our own FA formula that (largely) mimics the software
-use spreadsheet to make sure all bids are legal
-use spreadsheet to apply RNGs to bids and determine results
-use macro to move all players in software to the right teams / contracts / etc.
.
In either case, a major con will be that bids will need to be sanitized because some GMs will have bad format / typos / whatever, and unlike DCs certain GMs won't be able to assist with this process since bids need to be kept secret.
Also in either case, a macro will be required to interact with the software which as we know isn't always seamless but in the testing I've done it's a lot more reliable than DC stuff.
Finally, in either case we will have a dramatic reduction in commissioner work because the checking / entering of the bids will be largely automated and aside from forcing GMs to spell their players' names correctly there's no significant increase in GM work.
.
The only salient difference I see is in the second approach we will know exactly how FA works since we're building the formulas ourselves, which confers an advantage on GMs who care enough to actually read it - not saying this is a good or bad thing, just a result that's going to happen. I did some research on FA in the software which I'm using to guide the formulas, but there were a lot of mysteries that I never quite resolved. It also gives us flexibility to get rid of or emphasize things as we please.
For my part I think the first solution is better. We still have to interact with the software at some point in the process so neither one cuts out having to macro, and I think it's better to let the software do some of the work.
.
Any thoughts or questions welcome, and there is a little poll. Nothing's set in stone right now.
TimPig h7t trofie kn88 Mike Taco: Better than a Nacho
Druce 👼Saint Panktrick's Day👼 wee2dee ahebrewtoo IanBoyd duc15
Muzunga Majic dump jhb Norman Dale pedro el guapo
andrewluck cf3234 mj yawn jeezy soup
breauxcaine sugarshaun Buster rv avogato
dagrizz Mike rw troybarnes ryanr bigdaddycool
baller4ever sheezy29
We've been kicking around the idea of revamping FA in shout and with Odin. There are two basic proposals I think could go a long way.
.
1. Macro FA
-use spreadsheet to make sure all bids are legal
-use spreadsheet to convert them all into an AHK macro
-use macro to enter all the bids into the software
-continue running FA in software itself as normal
2. Outside FA
-devise our own FA formula that (largely) mimics the software
-use spreadsheet to make sure all bids are legal
-use spreadsheet to apply RNGs to bids and determine results
-use macro to move all players in software to the right teams / contracts / etc.
.
In either case, a major con will be that bids will need to be sanitized because some GMs will have bad format / typos / whatever, and unlike DCs certain GMs won't be able to assist with this process since bids need to be kept secret.
Also in either case, a macro will be required to interact with the software which as we know isn't always seamless but in the testing I've done it's a lot more reliable than DC stuff.
Finally, in either case we will have a dramatic reduction in commissioner work because the checking / entering of the bids will be largely automated and aside from forcing GMs to spell their players' names correctly there's no significant increase in GM work.
.
The only salient difference I see is in the second approach we will know exactly how FA works since we're building the formulas ourselves, which confers an advantage on GMs who care enough to actually read it - not saying this is a good or bad thing, just a result that's going to happen. I did some research on FA in the software which I'm using to guide the formulas, but there were a lot of mysteries that I never quite resolved. It also gives us flexibility to get rid of or emphasize things as we please.
For my part I think the first solution is better. We still have to interact with the software at some point in the process so neither one cuts out having to macro, and I think it's better to let the software do some of the work.
.
Any thoughts or questions welcome, and there is a little poll. Nothing's set in stone right now.
