dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
 Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 21:56 |
 
|
Ok, so I'm new here, although some of you may know me from the "other" version (but I hope that those who don't know me don't hold that against me please!), so I was wondering about the 15% rule you have in place:
| Quote: | | There is a rule in the Ranked division that legal games can only be played between teams with a MAXIMUM of 15% difference in TV, judged from the LOWER TV team. You may be able to play the game as normal if the difference is greater, but the upload will fail - please be aware of this rule, as ignorance of it will probably lead to much frustration. This rule is not enforced if both teams have either TV of greater than 2490k or TV of lower than 1000k (NOT CONFIRMED YET). |
As I understand it the same applies in [B ] (apart from tournaments).
My question is this: why?
The answer I got from Woodstock was that it was to prevent | Quote: | | People picking on newbies with killer teams and driving them of the site never to return?... People getting banned for cherry picking too much?... I'm sure you have heard of it |
I'm sure it does that, but there are other unintended consequences of this. For example, from here -> http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?p=583648#p583648
| Galakstarscraper wrote: | | But as I said with Cyanide's MM ... the rules were not meant to be used on leagues that did only TV matchings for match-ups. Its not organic and it ignores that certain inducements were added in to help weed down those higher TV teams. |
95% of games played in the box occur at 150TV difference or below (data from 16 Jan to 30 Sep). That means that many of the very inducements mentioned by Galak above are artificially limited by having tight TV margins.
My contention is that there may be other ways to limit those things Woodstock mentions without having an effect on the balance of the game. My initial suggestion is matching on a fairly flexible "games played" algorithm combined with a (very) loose TV element.
If I'm out of line then I apologise and will go back to trying to fix my java client so I can play a few more games  |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 22:11 |
|
I have to agree with Woodstock really Dode, I think this site suffers enough as it is already with people picking "easy games" against the new guys in Ranked and people min maxing in the box to making life tough for new comers.
If you do not want to play with the 15% rule there are many leagues to play in including a great one set up by koadah which is an open free for all type division much like ranked without the restrictions. So what ever you want to get out of fumbbl the options are there for you.
Personally I would never play in Blackbox if there was a chance I could enter a rookie Pro elf team and get drawn against a monster minmanxed 2000Tv dwarf team because no amount of inducements are going to make that game winable unless your opponent sucks.
edit: also what inducements are there to weed down 2000tv Dwarves? when you play with rookie pro elves? None thats how many. I feel Galak has got that a little wrong tbh, most inducements designed to help teams win against the odds are quite gimmicky anyway, like Wizards and Chainsaw that require a large slice of luck to be at all effective anyway. |
_________________
 |
|
blader4411
Joined: Oct 18, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 22:15 |
|
Hehehe, luckily all Dwarf teams get cut down before reaching 2000TV, thanks to an abundance of ClawPOMB 
But yeah, I agree that the 15% is good, it prevents further screwups with match-making here.
-Blader |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 22:27 |
|
Bit of a straw man there Garion - I never suggested that 2000TV dwarves should be able to go up against rookie Elves. In fact, my own suggestion of "a fairly flexible "games played" algorithm combined with a (very) loose TV element" would prevent that.
Dwarves are very effected by the wizard as you almost certainly know, "gimmicky" or not. The cage, in particular, is vulnerable to it and the speed of the agi teams (all the elves and skaven) is perfect to take advantage and either get a defensive TD or cause sufficient cage-stalling to prevent the dwarves scoring a TD. That's a different matter though
blader - I think that the CPOMB issue (if there is one) is a part of this - I'd rather face a 2400TV Chaos team with 1800TV orcs plus inducements than with 2400TV orcs. |
|
|
Carnis
Joined: Feb 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 22:30 |
|
dode74, the problem is teams like this: http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=641013
Assuming the current system (15% rule), it faces mostly other teams of similar builds (the other teams dont stay that high TV, they die down to 1800's pretty quick). Now without the 15% rule there would be no sweetspotting (playing a team at its optimal TV-range exclusively) anymore (good thing).
I feel the cost would be too much though, there is nothing inducements can do to cover the difference for a TV 1400 team with 12 players. 2 Stars are nice, but no apo on them and claw ignoring their armor means assuming the teams are not equally matched they will be shortlived.
If you want to see those stars, all the majors have some gimmicky matches with >1000 tv differences. Sometimes the underdog wins, too. Almost never by killing/keeping the killerteam in check, though. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 22:34 |
|
The problem is, that fumbbl has evolved well beyond the common league format. This means some out of game rules needed to added to maintain a healthy gaming environment.
The league division is maintained by individual league managers so there isn't any problem there. However if ranked especially was given such freedom, as with all internet gaming there would be those that would take advantage of it. When some take advantage, another group joins the bandwagon to maintain an even playing field and the healthy gaming environment is lost.
Enducements were never meant to give an even chance of winning, by Galak's workings somewhere around 35% I believe. Ranked and blackbox try to highlight coach playing skills rather than skills of match making, thus the 15% rule is quite important, to a site like this.
Seeing first hand what does happen and can happen if cherry picking is allowed, the 15% rule is vital for a site like this. |
|
|
ex-convict
Joined: Jun 28, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 22:39 |
|
IMO, while inducements do a good job of evening games (far moreso than handicaps usually did,) it is not ideal to rely on them to get even-ish matchups. The best way to have two close teams pair up is by having two teams with similar TVs, which is why the 15% rule is necessary. Like someone stated above, some matchups are simply not suitable even with inducements.
So while it might be annoying that you can't always instantly get a game with someone because of the rule, I think it's in the best interest of trying to ensure competitive games. |
_________________
Part of the NCBB and the NBFL.
Don't drop the soap. |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 22:46 |
|
I agree that house rules are needed for a matchmaking environment, harvestmouse. My contention is that the 15% rule has consequences which are unintended. Did you guys really intend for 95% of your games to take place within 150TV of each other, for over 50% of your games to be so closely matched by TV that even Babes can't be taken? That's what's happening, and TV and team strength are not necessarily equivalent, particularly at higher TVs.
As for Galak's intent for inducements, it was for the underdog to not have less than a 30-35% win%. Having looked at the [B ] data the underdog win% is meaning at 43% at a 230TV difference. Even at that "high" a difference the game certainly still seems competitive.
Something is needed, that much is certain. All I'm saying is that the current rule seems to limit the game somewhat and has some (possibly unintended) consequences.
Hell, it might be that I'm barking up the wrong tree and you want people to sweetspot and play close TV matches, I just think a little more variation is both fun and good for the game.
How can someone take advantage of not having the 15% rule in [B ], btw?
And before anyone says I'm trying to tell you guys how to play FUMBBL, I'm not. I'm asking you why you play it the way you do. |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 22:51 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | I agree that house rules are needed for a matchmaking environment, harvestmouse. My contention is that the 15% rule has consequences which are unintended. Did you guys really intend for 95% of your games to take place within 150TV of each other, for over 50% of your games to be so closely matched by TV that even Babes can't be taken? That's what's happening, and TV and team strength are not necessarily equivalent, particularly at higher TVs. |
And why is that bad?
| Quote: | | As for Galak's intent for inducements, it was for the underdog to not have less than a 30-35% win%. Having looked at the [B ] data the underdog win% is meaning at 43%(+/-8%) at a 230TV difference. Even at that "high" a difference the game is still certainly competitive. |
Yeah, Galak's intentions... Ill leave at that.
| Quote: | | Something is needed, that much is certain. All I'm saying is that the current rule seems to limit the game somewhat and has some (possibly unintended) consequences. |
Why is something needed? If any thing is needed, it is balancing skills and bringing back traits to diversify team builds again.
| Quote: | | Hell, it might be that I'm barking up the wrong tree and you want people to sweetspot and play close TV matches, I just think a little more variation is both fun and good for the game. |
That is your opinion... |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 22:56 |
|
@Woodstock
- It is bad because you say you want even games but the measure you are using doesn't give them. Take any two teams at the same TV and unless you min-max them then one is likely "stronger" than the other. Matching by TV rewards min-maxing.
- Whether you like Galak's intentions regarding inducements or not, they appear to work here and on Cyanide. Attacking the designer of the rules doesn't alter the fact that inducements appear to do the job they were designed to do.
- Something is needed because the game wasn't designed with huge open league formats in mind. For all the reasons you stated and I quoted above, something is needed. I'm sure you preferred previous rules, and I too have things I would change about this ruleset, but the fact is that this is what we have and what has to be worked with.
- Indeed it is my opinion. That's why I said as much |
|
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:02 |
|
| Woodstock wrote: | | Quote: | | Something is needed, that much is certain. All I'm saying is that the current rule seems to limit the game somewhat and has some (possibly unintended) consequences. |
Why is something needed? If any thing is needed, it is balancing skills and bringing back traits to diversify team builds again. |
If I remember correctly:
The "old" Blackbox used TS and not TR as the main matching number, accounting for the TR-difference and thus the given handicaps were given a TR-equivalent in the process. The site owner used his power to create a houserule as a measure for a housematching in a houseleague. There is no reason that the new housematching in the houseleague needs to rely on the official measure.
It is not about balancing skills and bringing back traits, as the old Box would have suffered from the same effects if it had used TR instead of TS. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:03 |
|
It would be cool for a team to have an option when activating. To match by TV or randomly or any.
It's pretty irritating getting multiple not enough matches when there might be 4 coaches in the box.
Obviously many people would tick TV matching but quite a few would like to play some of the bigger teams without having to over bloat their own. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:14 |
|
| Quote: | @Woodstock
- It is bad because you say you want even games but the measure you are using doesn't give them. Take any two teams at the same TV and unless you min-max them then one is likely "stronger" than the other. Matching by TV rewards min-maxing. |
Min-maxing is only bad due to the one dimensional skill builds of the overpowered teams. Ow and btw, any kind of matchmaking promotes min-maxing with power teams, at what level they min-max will change however.
| Quote: | | - Whether you like Galak's intentions regarding inducements or not, they appear to work here and on Cyanide. Attacking the designer of the rules doesn't alter the fact that inducements appear to do the job they were designed to do. |
It is not per se an attack on the inducements, they are far better then the handicaps, but still most of them are not worth it. It is more about how Galak responded 5 years ago when someone said that clawpomb would be a problem... And his respond was that DP SG fend and wrestle are good counters.
| Quote: | | - Something is needed because the game wasn't designed with huge open league formats in mind. For all the reasons you stated and I quoted above, something is needed. I'm sure you preferred previous rules, and I too have things I would change about this ruleset, but the fact is that this is what we have and what has to be worked with. |
oh really? I suggest you read this: https://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=475483#475483
| Quote: | | - Indeed it is my opinion. That's why I said as much |
debate ftw!
-----
| f_alk wrote: | | Woodstock wrote: | | Quote: | | Something is needed, that much is certain. All I'm saying is that the current rule seems to limit the game somewhat and has some (possibly unintended) consequences. |
Why is something needed? If any thing is needed, it is balancing skills and bringing back traits to diversify team builds again. |
If I remember correctly:
The "old" Blackbox used TS and not TR as the main matching number, accounting for the TR-difference and thus the given handicaps were given a TR-equivalent in the process. The site owner used his power to create a houserule as a measure for a housematching in a houseleague. There is no reason that the new housematching in the houseleague needs to rely on the official measure.
It is not about balancing skills and bringing back traits, as the old Box would have suffered from the same effects if it had used TR instead of TS. |
TS was invented because how TR was calculated was flawed (inlcuding MNG's and cash, etc). There is nothing wrong with how TV is calculated, only with how the skills are gained and what they do. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:20 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | - Something is needed because the game wasn't designed with huge open league formats in mind. |
First off that is just wrong, I can provide quote from Galak and JJ saying the rules were written exactly for this before they were released. Galak even specifically mentions fumbbl in one of them and says something along the lines of fumbbl has shown how BB can work perfectly in a perpetual environment (talking about lrb4) and how he felt the new rules would be even better for this environment, something that hasnt quite turned out as planned for some of the reasons Woodstock has mentioned. Galak seems to have back tracked on that point now mind. Although I believe his main bone of contentioon like yours are the house ruled 15% limits/TV matchmaking.
I do not understand how this could be done any other way really. When I want to play a quick game of BB I want as fair a match up as possible. I do not want the risk of being a hg underdog in a big open division ever. Also as Canis and everyone else that has played in Black box enough has already said there is nothing to stop some high TV teams like the one Carnis posted if you are a huge underdog. The inducements do not work as intended in those instance because of how uber effective certain skill combinations are.
Even if the 15% was loosened up it would make no change to sweet spotting or min maxing. Those teams would likely be even better equiped to deal with playing at higher TV gaps than others. |
_________________
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 09, 2011 - 23:23 |
|
@ Woodstock
- Minmaxing is bad because it is boring. The emphasis on TV means that you have to get the maximum bang for your buck, and the fact is that some skills work better in combination that others. You and I both know that this is a highly complex game, and not all skill combos will be equal.
- So you agree that the inducements work, which is my point. Your talk of CPOMB counters and Galak's statement on them is something of a red herring.
- Where in there does it say "huge open league formats". I see Galak praises FUMBBL (and rightly so), but wasn't FUMBBL at the time using the TS formula to matchmake? He was praising a platform which used house rules to make the league work, and work well. Clearly those house rules were needed. Or are you now arguing that no house rules at all are needed and that we should do away with the 15% rule altogether?
- Debate ftw indeed! My point was that my opinion is that "a little more variation is both fun and good for the game". You are free to disagree with that, of course, but you are yet to do so.
@ Garion, I believe I answer your post above - Galak was praising FUMBBL with house ruled matchmaking by TS.
There seems to be some confusion, and some defensiveness. I'm not saying house rules are bad, nor am I attacking FUMBBL at all. I'm suggesting that the 15% rule may not be doing what is intended and may be contributing to some of the issues with min-maxing and the like. |
Last edited by dode74 on %b %09, %2011 - %23:%Oct; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
| |
killing by fun?
Search
