bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
 Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 10:31 |
 
|
This comment is at least as ignorant as you believe i am. You assume you know me. Go figure! |
_________________
 |
|
Medon
Joined: Jan 28, 2015
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 10:32 |
|
Nice insights!
Stalling and clock management happens in all sports. In soccer/football when teams are often just passing the ball in the back field and waiting for a final offense in the last 5 mins, when sometimes even the goalkeeper joins in on the final corner ball.
TV for match pair up is indeed strange. In a new league, you would mainly be meeting teams with the same #matches played. If you advance further on, you're meeting teams of similar strength by the promotion/demotion system. Would this be an option? To mimic black box based on league systems?
We could have black box fringe divisions for teams with 0-10 games (rookie fringe), 10-20 games (veteran fringe). For 20+ games there could be a ranking based on win/loss ratio, e.g. named black box premiership / black box conferences / black box regional division. Match ups are random within a division.
This way black box would be more fun for the poor coaches (you're playing in the black box regional division and don't need to retire your team after 30 games to avoid the chaos monsters). On the other hand it might get more difficult to get a game since a coach from the same division should activate.
Well, for me it would be more fun because I really like the league concept, where you can play too earn a promotion to a higher division. But for other coaches it might spoil the fun because they can no longer prey on noobs and it would be harder to get a game.
Everyone may have their own opinion. Peace and love for everyone.  |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 10:33 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | The problem with "minmaxing" is that a variety of different people will have differing views on exactly what it constitutes and the second you bring it up, it devolves into an argument on semantics. |
If the aim of minmaxing is to improve performance per unit TV then some sort of performance weighting added to TV would seem appropriate, wouldn't it? |
|
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 10:36 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | bghandras wrote: | | I think there should be a "CRP minmaxing suggestion and complaint" thread... |
Actually I made one, joint with a CPOMB thread. It didn't take off though.....but when Lorebass made one....70 odd pages and rising. |
It's ok HM. We love you. C'mon, give me a big hug.
*hugs* it'll be alright buddy. |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 10:41 |
|
| Endzone wrote: | | I think stalling is fine. I think this would happen. The orcs would know that if they score quickly the elves would run past them and score back so they would cage up and try to kill the elves. This is in 'the spirit' of the game since the fans want to see blood just as much as touchdowns (maybe more). The orc fans would be going wild as the elves were pulled limb from limb. The difference in tactics between the races is one of the beauties of the game. |
I think what Harvestmouse is talking more about (and Nerdbird by extension) is the tendency of every team to stall.
The idea of a slow, deep, treacle-like, agile offensive meandering down the pitch, occasionally dodging or being forced to hand-off before scoring in turn 8. Or the slow pour into the opponent's last third before milling around, half-heartedly chucking the ball between elves while their joyful opponent removes scores of their number.
Thing is - I've deliberately painted them that way with my use of adjectives. I could just as easily have said "a graceful procession down the field, as noble elves haughtily prevent all but the most inelegant of blocks, protecting their chosen carrier until they deign to decide that it is time to score" or "an explosive race into the opponent's third, after which the arrogance/trickery/skill of the elvish race is shown to all at hand, as they keep the ball out of reach of their desperate opponent, scoring only when they decide". |
_________________
 |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 10:46 |
|
| Chainsaw wrote: |
It's ok HM. We love you. C'mon, give me a big hug.
*hugs* it'll be alright buddy. |
Sniff.... 
| Medon wrote: |
TV for match pair up is indeed strange. In a new league, you would mainly be meeting teams with the same #matches played. If you advance further on, you're meeting teams of similar strength by the promotion/demotion system. Would this be an option? To mimic black box based on league systems? |
We couldn't have any new divisions. It will spread the player base too thin.
I don't think the division/box aspect is a road Christer wants to go down. Faction (an old division that was table based) had it's problems and kind of failed.
I do agree though, I think a larger Faction/Blackbox league would most certainly be the way to go. It gives coaches goals as well as combats treading water.
Would it though combat 11 man benches? Yes maybe a to some extent. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 11:24 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | The problem with "minmaxing" is that a variety of different people will have differing views on exactly what it constitutes and the second you bring it up, it devolves into an argument on semantics. |
If the aim of minmaxing is to improve performance per unit TV then some sort of performance weighting added to TV would seem appropriate, wouldn't it? |
It isn't always that simple though, is it?
For some people minmax so they are keeping to a TV where you avoid certain other teams, but aren't necessarily equipped to deal with some of the races you might face.
It also might mean making decisions regarding rerolls and apothecaries etc that are definitely not improving the performance of your team.
This is what I mean by minmaxing being a semantic debate - there's a myriad of ways in which people manage their tv, and even more by which people manipulate it. Which ones are exploitative and which ones are "necessary sweetspotting" comes down to personal attitudes.
As for performance based, how are you going to weight that? If I create a 11man cpomb pact killsquad, your system isn't going to do much if I only care about trashing teams unless you're weighting it on a per-player basis. In which case, that's unlikely to ever translate to tabletop. Where yes, this whole stuff is less of a problem, but it should still be considered when we think of the overall game. |
_________________
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 11:29 |
|
| Quote: |
For some people minmax so they are keeping to a TV where you avoid certain other teams, but aren't necessarily equipped to deal with some of the races you might face.
It also might mean making decisions regarding rerolls and apothecaries etc that are definitely not improving the performance of your team. |
All of which would be accounted for by a performance metric. Minmax poorly (i.e. in a way which does not improve performance) and you get little weighting; minmax efficiently and you get a larger weighting. If it's not improving performance per unit TV then what's the issue with people building teams as they wish?
As for the how: https://voodoomath.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/matching-by-numbers/ |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 11:50 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Quote: |
For some people minmax so they are keeping to a TV where you avoid certain other teams, but aren't necessarily equipped to deal with some of the races you might face.
It also might mean making decisions regarding rerolls and apothecaries etc that are definitely not improving the performance of your team. |
All of which would be accounted for by a performance metric. Minmax poorly (i.e. in a way which does not improve performance) and you get little weighting; minmax efficiently and you get a larger weighting. If it's not improving performance per unit TV then what's the issue with purple building teams as they wish?
As for the how: https://voodoomath.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/matching-by-numbers/ |
Shrug.
As I was considering in my replies, the initial post was a lament that people build teams in such ways, or play in such a manner. Or feel they have to.
I think your favoured formula would potentially lead to a lot of mirrors (or continual bash v bash, agile v agile except at extremities of win%), which is something else a lot of people find undesirable.
But there is no pleasing everyone, is there? |
_________________
Last edited by ArrestedDevelopment on %b %19, %2016 - %11:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
Faulcon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 11:51 |
|
Stalling is just another way of controlling possession of the ball. Controlling possession is certainly a big deal in most real life sports. I see no material difference between a running team stalling one square away from a touchdown or a passing team stalling by having a +ag/strong arm/accurate thrower hiding down the other end of the pitch. It's all about control.
If your opponent doesn't run a bench then be happy for every player you remove. It's a conscious decision they've made and one of the bad things about tv matching environments. Most league and tournament teams will try to have a couple of subs because the extra tv is worth it. |
|
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 11:55 |
|
The bench issue and optimising TV is interesting. Things changed a fair bit with the inducements system of the recent ruleset. Prior to the inducements system, running a large bench and suboptimal teams was less of an issue because the handicap system didn't really do much to even the playing field. Now everyone is trying to minimise opponent handicaps.
I personally think a reserve or 2 is still a good idea but not so many coaches have them these days. |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 12:09 |
|
@Endzone How would skill price changes affect either stalling or minmaxing? If you change the price of core skills Norse and Zons dominate even more at low TV.[/quote]
It would help address min-maxing, not stalling. Min -maxing, under CRP, is mostly about maximising select skills on select players within a given TV. Fewer of these select skills would be possible within a given TV thus helping to address the problem. Coaches could still min-max, but if the various options available to a coach for a given TV were of similar in game value then this would be more about fine tuning an not have the impact it does now.
The TV cost of core skills would also need to be addressed in rosters, this would need to be done with care but as a starting point Norse and Amazon Linewomen could be priced at 60K.
I am not saying this increase in TV cost for core skills is a compete solution to min-maxing, but it could be a very simple way of making a significant difference. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 12:10 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | As I was considering in my replies, the initial post was a lament that people build teams in such ways, or play in such a manner. Or feel they have to. |
Really? Because I read the sentence "striving to squeeze every ounce of TV out of their team". If they are getting every ounce out then their performance improves.
| Quote: | | I think your favoured formula would potentially lead to a lot of mirrors (or continual bash v bash, agile v agile except at extremities of win%), which is something else a lot of people find undesirable. |
I can't see any reason that would be the case, unless you are claiming there is a large disparity in win rates across races (which we know there is not). |
|
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 12:15 |
|
| Grod wrote: |
I personally think a reserve or 2 is still a good idea but not so many coaches have them these days. |
I used to think that 11 players was ideal on most teams, nowadays I prefer 12 or 13 even on elves. I think it comes with the fact that I was a huge picker back then, and far less so now. If you avoid all mb tackle as elves, 11 is quite a good number. If you want to be able to take on clawpomb chaos, 13 (or even 14 with 2 dp) actually works very well.
| dode74 wrote: | | ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | As I was considering in my replies, the initial post was a lament that people build teams in such ways, or play in such a manner. Or feel they have to. |
Really? Because I read the sentence "striving to squeeze every ounce of TV out of their team". If they are getting every ounce out then their performance improves.
| Quote: | | I think your favoured formula would potentially lead to a lot of mirrors (or continual bash v bash, agile v agile except at extremities of win%), which is something else a lot of people find undesirable. |
I can't see any reason that would be the case, unless you are claiming there is a large disparity in win rates across races (which we know there is not). |
Agreed. I think the current way R worked does this far more than such a system would (except for stunty races, maybe). I assume you would apply such a system based solely on team performance, not coach performance? |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating) |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 12:20 |
|
| the_Sage wrote: | | I assume you would apply such a system based solely on team performance, not coach performance? |
Correct. We have no realistic way to measure coach performance, for one, and we don't want "bleed over" from the coach playing 20 games with Goblins in order to lower their Woodie rating. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
