plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
 Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 14:56 |
 
|
Is it really too much to move it to the proper thread before it drowns out the OPS content completely? |
|
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 15:51 |
|
Anyone who plays a bunch of high TV Chorf and Nurg games is going to have a good win %, just like anyone who plays a bunch of high TV Fling and Goblin games is going to have a poor win %.
There are good teams and bad teams, and Chaos Dwarves are probably the best team of all, next to Zons who can choose not to play vs Tackle and old Nurgs who are just much bigger than them.
Like, you can build a 1400 TV Lizardman team with one superstar blodge sure-hands skink, block on all the Saurus, and Guard on the Krox, and sack everyone who gets any other skills. At that TV they are extremely hard to beat and coaches who play that get a great win % even when they're not very good.
So, you know, discussing ranked/box win % like it means anything is basically nonsense, because anyone can just choose to win in those environments. In ranked you can just play games you will win all day: I did it for a week or so, it's not much fun for me, but you just can.
In Leagues that stuff does not work at all, so if you don't like it play League.
But Chaos teams full of basic CPOMB? They do not win majors. They don't even win brawls, or Leagues, or anything. All CPOMB does is break the other team, steals away whatever insists on being in reach. In theory that'll win you some games, in practice it's not that reliable and without the more important skills you end up behind by a couple before the numbers can really count, and then you struggle to move the ball quick enough and still protect it to overcome that.
Chorfs are a good team partly because they can build a proper killer, but mostly because Bull Centaurs with +AG are almost the perfect ball carriers and ball sackers in one, Hobgoblins are a really cheap bench with just the right stats to compliment the blockers, and with just Guard the blockers are amazing for 90 TV. It's a great team.
I hope that understanding sweet spots and win rates and how skills really interact will help in discussions of what should change in the game. |
_________________
  |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 16:10 |
|
Very good Tussock..........you've addressed my points, by not actually addressing the important points at all.
Anyway this is way off topic and getting beyond stupid. I'm ejector seating it out of here. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 16:49 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | ]
Come on now, nobody could manage to balance all races over the full TV range (Short of making all starting stats and skills equal for all races). The second best thing to give races purpose is to have them sweetspot at different points. |
Nobody could achieve perfect balance?
True.
Could the overall balance be improved by better assessing the TV and tweaking the worst offending rosters at low TV (generally due to Block/Dodge spam teams) and at high TV (generally due to Clawpomb spam)?
True as well.
As I said other times, the fact that perfect balance is impossible to achieve is not an excuse for not trying to improve it. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 17:00 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | Who says the 'metric' for a balanced roster is an even lifetime win %, or if that is even achievable? |
The BBRC did, as I believe I have said before.
| Quote: | Who decides what is 'objectively broken'? King Dode?  |
Whoever owns the rules and determines what metric defines balance, measuring performance against that metric to see if the design goals have been met. An example would be the Cyanide Khorne team which, whether you like the team or not, met the design goals (T1.5, and a bunch of restrictions put in place by Cyanide). I know how I would tweak it, and I know how I would have tweaked it if it had not met those goals, but the ownership of the team is with Cyanide and they can choose whether to or not assuming the design goal is met.
Currently for BB as a whole that is GW, who some time ago gave that responsibility to the BBRC before dissolving it.
HM - Again, your Italian chap is a single datapoint. The overall data doesn't appear to show a similar pattern. And, frankly, who cares if it does so long as the teams are working within the tolerances stated by the BBRC.
You say win percentages are by the by, but actually they are the only metric we know about which the BBRC used to balance teams. If there are any others then we don't know what they are, so we cannot assume there are any others. Regarding the points you seem to think are relevant:
1. Who cares? So long as the total amount of attrition is roughly right, and using it doesn't cause the team to go outside the tier bracket, what's the issue?
2. It only ONLY affects them in that manner in B/MM. There's no avoidance in leagues, and there is no preponderance of long-term, non-race-limited leagues which are reporting an issue.
3. How is the "amount of randomness" relevant to anything other than a subjective preference of how random a match should be? It certainly doesn't tell us it's broken, and the desired amount of randomness can only be set by the BBRC. All this tells me is you want less randomness (however you are determining that), which is fine, but it's a preference rather than an objectively broken metric.
I defend CPOMB at any TV because there is no evidence it is broken. If there is an issue it is in B/MM, so the issue isn't the combo, it's the matching system.
Wreckage - I'm quite happy to take this discussion wherever you want to. If people keep asking me questions then I will answer them. You and others have hardly been quiet on this thread, yet I am the target of your ire?
That said, you've at least partially answered Matt's point quite nicely, for which I thank you.
Matt - sweetspotting is going to happen. As Wreckage says, you can't get the variability we have without sacrificing that. That's why I'd want inducements to actually, rather than partially, fill the gap.
What you are advocating is balance creep - you want things more and more balanced. What the BBRC did is set a desired bracket for the balance metric (the tiers) and got things within that bracket. That you disagree with their bracket is, once again, a matter of preference rather than objective brokenness. It's fine that you'd prefer it that way, but the decision and remit was theirs. |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| dode74 wrote: | | sweetspotting is going to happen. As Wreckage says, you can't get the variability we have without sacrificing that. That's why I'd want inducements to actually, rather than partially, fill the gap. |
This is an interesting point I'd like to discuss. I mentioned in my own answers (which got lost a half-dozen pages back) that this is the question I've been most surprised by the responses to. I'll re-post my thoughts.
| I wrote: | 2. Would Blood Bowl be better if inducements were worth their listed value (making games 'fairer') or is a favourable match-up the reward for building a team?
I'm quite surprised by a lot of people's answers to this one, as I always thought their purpose was to bridge the gap between teams and make the match fairer, but they just failed a bit. Turns out no-one wants them to do this. Personally I dislike the mechanic generally, but in a TV matched environment you need something to close gaps and in this environment I think it should do it better (ie. be more effective and worth their TV). In leagues I'd consider dropping them entirely though. Playing TV gaps in leagues is part of the fun of the environment. |
So far though it seems me and Dode are the only 2 who think this way? I think accurately costed inducements could be great for TV match-making, and I'd love to try it out if such a thing was possible.
Some people have said things like 'inducements are costed correctly' and 'how do you know a babe isn't worth 50TV?', which is true as there's no comparison. There are ones we can compare though, and they all come out badly. Apos aren't worth 100TV, Re-rolls aren't worth 100TV. Both are cheaper on the roster. Mercs are also more costly than journeymen. These are the points we can compare, and all come out as not fair to the lower TV side if the goal was to make the match even. I can only then conclude that this wasn't the goal of inducements, which seems... weird. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 17:54 |
|
What we do know from the data is that the lower TV team tends to win the game less than the higher TV team, with the win% dropping to ~30% when the difference reaches 300-400TV. From that we can infer that inducements don't cover the gap sufficiently well to make the match even. We also know that this was deliberate, the aim being to force people to grow their teams (like it or loathe it), so any cost change to inducements would be a preference for a house rule. I don't see an issue with that since inducement cost changes are something which is mentioned multiple times in the house rules section.
I guess if we decided that inducements should bridge the gap then the problem becomes "what should they cost?" I don't think there's a fixed "accurate" cost as it varies wildly with team TVs and with the races involved in a match. There is a way to ensure that people get more accurately costed inducements, thereby making a match closer to 50-50 regardless of the TV gap, but that's been discussed at length as well... You could also go for individual costs per race, ofc (which would still be approximate, but might a closer version of approximate). So an extra RR would cost 50k for dorfs, 60k for chaos etc, but that might lead to some fairly lengthy "inducement cost" tables. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 18:28 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: | | I'm quite surprised by a lot of people's answers to this one, as I always thought their purpose was to bridge the gap between teams and make the match fairer, but they just failed a bit. Turns out no-one wants them to do this. Personally I dislike the mechanic generally, but in a TV matched environment you need something to close gaps and in this environment I think it should do it better (ie. be more effective and worth their TV). In leagues I'd consider dropping them entirely though. Playing TV gaps in leagues is part of the fun of the environment. |
The goal of inducements wasn't to even the match, not by design. It was to narrow the gap between teams as common sense dictates. Basically it was about creating an environment where it isn't hopeless for the lower rated coach to compete.
The matter is however unrelated to the question of sweetspotting.
Sweetspotting means different teams peak at different levels at which point inducements become more attractive. But Bloodbowl is not happening in a bubble of ideally build teams, it is happening in a constantly fluctuating state. It is impossible to maintain a stable team, TV constantly goes up and down. Theoretically you could keep TV relatively stable through use of money and excessive retirement, something I believe some coaches call cycling. A practice that doesn't appear to be feasible to me but still seems to be practiced by a few coaches.
I suppose the main purpose of inducements is to allow a team in a league to catch up to the other teams without being destroyed. But apart from that it does a pretty damn fine job maintaining overall balance.
Costing induced stuff equal to uninduced stuff would make it more appealing to generally induce and not to build because as I said earlier, inducements allow you to react flexibly to the demands of the other team.
So an equally priced inducement RR would be in fact stronger than a team reroll.
I don't really get what you would be trying to archieve.
That every team plays at 1000 TV and nobody tries to develop anymore?
We might aswell just play BB non-progression.
It is obvious that inducements have to be weaker than developed teams. Sweetspotting has really nothing to do with it. Inducement value defines the lower limit of the point at which team building still makes sense. And the margin at which you have to build your team at is already set pretty high. There is really no room to make inducements better. At best there is room to balance inducements more towards a point where all of them are taken more frequently by looking at which inducements tend to get currently neglected and which get chosen frequently. |
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 19:19 |
|
The BBRC did indeed define how the tiers should be balanced.
And it is (to me) somewhat unfortunate that they chose such a weak definition. I mean, the percentages are fine.
But lifetime average is, IMO, not a good indicator of balance. Heck, a race could be outside the brackets for it's entire existence, yet still find the average inside the brackets.
And it doesn't help that it was never defined how to take the metagame into account. It seems to be just 'games' played. But in that case, (over)powered teams will have their percentage dragged down by other similar teams - or indeed by themselves, if mirror matches are included (which has never been stated that they shouldn't, and Dode has indeed argued the point). Also, as teams get sucky, they get less popular, thinning the meta of easy-pickings teams that could push powerteams above 55.
In a similar vein, take a look at the NAF stats for Chaos. Their win-mean is quite low, (at least it was until tiered res tournaments became increasingly popular) but since Chaos is miraculously seldomly played, the resulting wide percentage span using CI95 means that we can't really prove that they are outside of tier 1.
If anybody feels like commenting on this, I hope they will use another thread.
Cheers
Martin
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 20:07 |
|
Wreckage - better priced inducements as a team develops would answer your concern, I think. I have a solution which does just that
I do agree there needs to be an incentive to develop. The fact that there is a dropoff in returns for inducements due to the limited number of any one inducement you can take means there is one, I think.
plasmoid - Like it or not, the definition is what it is. That you or I disagree with it is moot. You'll note I've not ever said I thought it was the right definition, or that it is the definition I would choose, merely that it is the definition we have. That any of us would want it to be something else is a matter of preference.
I'd be most interested in seeing how you filtered out the tiered res tournaments from the NAF data, and which dataset you used to reach your conclusion that it has improved. I'd also contest that the CI95 bracket is as wide as you suggest. The reported win% is 44.13 from the data I have, and you'd need more than double the reported number of games of any other team in order to ensure the CI95 did not overlap into the T1 bracket. Not that looking at just NAF stats is a look at "lifetime" data, ofc...
If you feel like commenting on this I hope you will use another thread |
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 00:18 |
|
Hey Mr. Joshua. Interesting thread. I'll bite 
1. Re: Randomness.
I think the balance is pretty good. Sure, it stings getting burned. But on the other hand grabbing Victory from the jaws of defeat is awesome.
2. Re: Inducements.
I think, as designed, that inducements should not close the gap. I think they Work pretty well. They're expensive, but flexible.
3. Re: CPOMB
I think it is too good. The least interesting drives/games are the ones where one team gets outnumbered early. CPOMB is too Good at that for my taste.
4. Re: Attrition
I think the attrition is about right. Though I'd like some of it shifted from CPOMB to fouling. The more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that part of the problem with CPOMB is really too many KOs.
5. Re: TV
I think it is pretty good. I think it could be improved a little, without making it unsuited for TT gaming. I think, as Christer said, that skill values is a good place to start.
6. Re: Spiralling Expenses good, bad, or flawed?
I think they're good. And it is worth remembering that they're supposed to be tailored to the individual League.
7. Re: FF value.
Well, you really only pay for the FF-difference between you and your opponent.
But I'd rather have the FF value apply to 2d6 rolls on each kick-off result, than having everything ride on the Gate roll.
8. Re: Stars
Like all inducements they should be slightly overpriced, to reflect that they only get taken when they're at their best. Still, a few stars might be overcosted currently(?)
9. Re: Tiers/rosters
For me, the tier 1 teams should be closer together, and tier 1.5, 2 and 3 shouldn't be quite as far behind as they are now.
10. Re: Faster play
Hmm... I suppose it wouldn't be BB anymore. But I do think I'd be interested in a game with fewer 8 turn stalls.
11. Re: Less stalling
See above
12. Re: Ageing
I don't think it will ever be enjoyable to have a player wrecked by an off-pitch mechanic.
13. Re: Sillyness
Current rules Work for me. (I like the PCRP+ sneaky git that can bring back a weapon)
14. Re: Wizards
IMO, the wizard is underpriced. Perhaps so is the second Bloodweiser Babe. Perhaps. IMO, the wizard ought to be 200K.
15. Re: Gold
Not really. I know it isn't popular, but I enjoy the/my ageing version which allows you to tap into your gold flexibly.
I did play in a League with stadium improvements. And player bounties. Good fun 
16. Re: Kick-off table
Blitz! and PD is but much for my taste. But I can live with them. I just wish there was something (like a Call Audible skill) to lessen their effect, if the coach was so inclined.
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 01:37 |
|
I'm going to try to answer MJ's questions, in spite of the round-trip I just took on this thread, which consisted of: 1) ignoring the thread because I thought it was about technical datafeeds, 2) becoming keen to contribute due to the topic as presented in the OP, then 3) completely losing interest due to its being taken over by pedantry.
Anyway here's my shot at forum posterity:
1. Would Blood Bowl benefit from being less random in both team-building and on the field, or is the random nature what makes it fun?
Randomness is a major part of the appeal for me, even as streaks of rotten luck throw me into fits. Pairing the randomness of team-building (improvement rolls) with price differential is genius, but pricing could probably be tightened up.
2. Would Blood Bowl be better if inducements were worth their listed value (making games 'fairer') or is a favourable match-up the reward for building a team?
Inducements need to be weaker than their listed value. An underdog should feel like an underdog, but the match must also feel worth playing.
3. While it is commonly accepted that CPOMb is is powerful, is the problem that it's too good, or that it's not available to everyone? Or that it's too easy to achieve?
It is too good. Point, click, die. But the in-game player advantage is not even the main reason. It also destroys the team-building aspect of the game (the role-playing bit, aka the most important bit imo). All players should face the increasing possibility of death, yes, but to face it in such a mindless, ham-handed manner is highly discouraging.
4. Disregarding how it's achieved, do you think Blood Bowl needs lower or higher attrition levels than are currently in the game?
Attrition levels are good as-is. I'd spread out the sources though.
5. Is TV a good mechanic, a wholly bad mechanic, or a flawed mechanic that could be implemented better?
The idea of TV is great. Most people who think it's flawed are confusing the mechanic with the implementation. Our game has a bunch of skills that are objectively better than others, and some that have great synergy with others. I think if you evened out the effectiveness of skills, TV would be 100% acceptable for matching.
6. Are Spiralling Expenses good, bad, or flawed?
They don't do what they were designed to do, that's clear. Conversely, having millions in cash isn't the advantage the designers feared either. The only problem with money is that certain teams can't keep enough of it to replace players. This is likely down to 2 things: 1) MB vs AV7, and 2) variance in winnings. d6 is too much variance. The game also needs more ways to spend cash productively.
7. Would the game benefit from Fan Factor being worth it's TV, or does it serve the purpose of a 'success tax'?
I'd link it to winnings. Its current 'success tax' effect is negligible to the point that not much would change if its impact on TV were removed.
8. Should Star Players be priced according to their abilities, or is their over-inflated cost correct?
Stars should be over-inflated; if they weren't, they'd sign a contract, right? But many are mispriced.
9. Should rosters strive to be completely balanced against each other, not at all balanced, somewhere in the middle, or some teams balanced while others are 'novelty'?
Rosters should be diverse. Wood Elves should ball, Orcs should bash, Dwarfs should be resilient, tie you up and foul hard, Zons should hit and run, Skaven should sneak and run, Goblins should cheat, Norse should play like fearless drunkards, Khorne should play the man not the ball, etc. etc. All of these tactics should be viable in any given match, with no particular tactic dominating across teams/races. Some races can be objectively weaker or stronger, I'm good with that, but they need to come as advertised and have a hope of winning. To me the secret sauce is balancing the skills.
10. Would the game benefit from encouraging faster play, more TDs and higher scoring?
Faster play, yes. More TDs and scoring, probably.
11. Would the game benefit from making stalling less desirable?
Yes but I don't believe it can be done.
12. Should ageing be a thing (recently re-implemented on BB2)? As LRB4, or as Cyanide, some other way or best gone completely?
Ageing as implemented in LRB4/Cyanide, absolutely not. Ageing as a concept, yes. It should be based on # of games played not advancement, it should have a mild and intermittent effect on individual matches, and it should not result in off-field auto-retirements.
13. Should secret weapons and other 'sillyness' be encouraged, discouraged, or is the current balance about right? Should weapons be auto-banned?
Encouraged encouraged encouraged. The more it is encouraged, the more the "pure tactical" players among us will learn to let their hair down. Bribes are the right mechanic for keeping SWs on the field. I like how they work as-is.
14. Would Blood Bowl benefit from removing the Wizard option, increasing it's cost, decreasing it's cost, or something else?
Wizards are great. Probably underpriced though.
15. Would Blood Bowl benefit from Gold being more useful/having more uses?
See above.
16. Should Kick-off table results have more of an impact on the game, less of an impact on the game, their current impact is about right, or they should be removed entirely?
The good defensive results are perhaps too good, and the offensive ones almost meaningless. Not sure they're worth changing much though, as there are reasons for the disparity. I lean in the direction of slightly increased mayhem. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 02:14 |
|
Plasmoid, I'm going to carry this on here, if you don't mind, as this isn't about cpomb and I think a more general discussion on 'game balance and development' is more appropriate here (sorry fidius).
So, Dode, let me get this straight. Your position seems to be that, as long as the ruleset meets some arbitrary set of 'balance criteria' that was set out by the BBRC, that means that everything is fine, that nothing can possibly be wrong with the game? It sounds like you don't have much regard for the opinions or enjoyment of the BB player community. 'All the matters is that the game meets this particular set of balance criteria..' |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 08:05 |
|
JellyBelly - your description of the criteria set out by the BBRC as "arbitrary" is indicative of your bias. Regardless of your opinion of those criteria, they had the remit to set them and the meeting (or otherwise) of those criteria define whether the design goals are met.
How are you measuring the "enjoyment of the BB player community?" Another poll?
As for our opinions, I think your sig says all that needs to be said on that one. I'm sure the BBRC listened to opinions during their rulemaking, but ultimately their opinions are the ones which mattered as they set the rules. I think they did a pretty good job in general, even though there are things I would choose to change. That's not my call, though, and they left room for me to make changes by advocating house rules. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 11:04 |
|
I also think that the BBRC did a pretty decent job. But we're posting on Fumbbl. I don't think that the current rules are great on Fumbbl.
If you change them you risk losing people. If you don't change them you risk losing people. That's the commish's dilemma.
Your numbers are not really that relevant. After making a change we check the numbers to see if they are still "fine". The numbers alone are not proof that we could not change the rules. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
|
|
| |
Roster Tiers
Search
