FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

ArrestedDevelopment

Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 11:11

Rawlf wrote:

If this is about your last game, where your oppo conceded on turn 2 after you niggled his claw,mb CD blocker, don't worry. You are not doing anything wrong.

If you're going to out it like this, let's also point out that this was a 10 game old playing up to a 77 game old team.

Which you know, might explain frustration about the number of skills on players...

_________________

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 11:12

Rming is fine.

The_Demon

Joined: Nov 18, 2012

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 11:20

No, not cheating, good player management I'd say, keeping your TV low with some great players. On the other hand, ALL your players aren't great, and with only 11 players, your going to be down on numbers, so its swings and roundabouts for me... Smile

Rawlf

Joined: Jul 15, 2007

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 11:31

ArrestedDevelopment wrote:

Rawlf wrote:

If this is about your last game, where your oppo conceded on turn 2 after you niggled his claw,mb CD blocker, don't worry. You are not doing anything wrong.

If you're going to out it like this, let's also point out that this was a 10 game old playing up to a 77 game old team.

Which you know, might explain frustration about the number of skills on players...

I'm not sure what the age of the teams explains. I think I don't understand your point?

Both coaches played some 200 games, both teams were around tv1600 and well built. A fair game, or do I miss something?

ArrestedDevelopment

Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 12:47

Rawlf wrote:

I'm not sure what the age of the teams explains. I think I don't understand your point?

Both coaches played some 200 games, both teams were around tv1600 and well built. A fair game, or do I miss something?

Because potentially the ages of the teams involved have allowed one team to develop in a manner the other has no answer for. That very reason is why we have rookie protection in box, but it doesn't prevent lopsided match-ups (in terms of skills, statfreaks or even just skill spread) at any TV, even assuming for absolutely matched TV.

Now, I know that this is the nature of TV-based matchmaking and this isn't a complaint, but when you've played a team for 50+ games, and have selectively got the skills you want on the positionals you want, kept the fodder low-skilled/dead, and taken all steps to move towards a trimmed, lean and mean team... Can a team that is still growing and and hasn't been able to pile skills onto a few players while others are being replaced as rookies/low skilled men really always compete?

I've had teams lineup for their first game vs several game old opposition who have multiple blodgers. We've all seen mng'd to hell skaven turn up with a natural one turner at a stupidly low tv. And even beyond extremes like that, the simplicity of being able to play a team for many games and frontload all skills onto certain players while your opponent has only played enough to take what they get...

TV-based match-making may ensure a lot of things, but it doesn't guarantee a "fair" game, nor does it guarantee fair platform for your own skill or that of your opponent.

Now, this was a ranked game, so both parties had the power to declare whether it was "okay" or not. But, if you actually read my post, I never questioned whether it was a fair match or not, I merely stated that if you were going to pinpoint that match as the possible source of the complaint, then it might make sense to point out that this was two teams with wildly different timescales for the collection of spp and allocation of skills, which in turn, might explain both frustration and accusation of "farming".

It don't explain the concession tho Wink

_________________

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 12:55

mrt1212 wrote:

Punctuation matters but if it doesn't to someone do you really care about those person's opinions?

Like so many others he clearly cares too much about random peoples opinions, that's why this thread exists.

Rawlf

Joined: Jul 15, 2007

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 13:31

Thanks for the clarification, AD.

I understand and agree with your points about age as a potential indicator and TV match-making. Yet those points are for general dabate, not an actual cause like we have here, where the teams can simply be looked at.

So your point was more about the number of skills, which is actually indeed very different in the game I suspect this is about - 13 vs 25 if I counted right - disregarding that some upgrades were even +st.
I guess that the teams were on the same tv level still comes from having more and more expensive players (like a mino).
That's just different ways to build a team in my view but I can see now how the coach perceived it as unfair as he didn't yet had the chance to turn selected players of his into super stars.
Needless to say i disagree of course.

Jamerson

Joined: Jul 22, 2009

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 13:31

Nothing wrong with your team. Looks like you have managed them in an efficient way Smile

_________________
"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by."

I am a fixer. And my services are valued.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 13:36

Jamerson wrote:

Nothing wrong with your team. Looks like you have managed them in an efficient way Smile

I 100% disagree.

There's no farming here, but maybe the opponent didn't know the correct words in English. Simply, I'd refuse to play this team. However as his opponent did agree..........no point complaining and the other team wasn't much better anyway.

Nightbird

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 13:52

Jamerson wrote:

Nothing wrong with your team. Looks like you have managed them in an efficient way Smile

Well managed indeed, but to each their own. There's an old saying, "You can make some of the people happy some of the time, but not all of the people happy all of the time.". And you'll find that never more apparent than here on Fumbbl. Do what you enjoy my friend because there are many avenues & ways in which you can play here. Plenty for all types to find their niche of fun.

_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley

Last edited by Nightbird on %b %23, %2016 - %14:%Aug; edited 1 time in total

keggiemckill

Joined: Oct 07, 2004

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 14:24

mrt1212 wrote:

Doesn't this boil down to

"I won't accept that someone beat me legitimately, they had some advantage I didn't have access to ergo they're bad and my ego remains intact despite the results"

Yus.

_________________
The Drunker I get, the more I spill

"Keggie is the guy with the bleach blond hair that gives answers nobody else would think of."
Jeffro

ArrestedDevelopment

Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 14:45

Rawlf wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, AD.

I understand and agree with your points about age as a potential indicator and TV match-making. Yet those points are for general dabate, not an actual cause like we have here, where the teams can simply be looked at.

So your point was more about the number of skills, which is actually indeed very different in the game I suspect this is about - 13 vs 25 if I counted right - disregarding that some upgrades were even +st.
I guess that the teams were on the same tv level still comes from having more and more expensive players (like a mino).
That's just different ways to build a team in my view but I can see now how the coach perceived it as unfair as he didn't yet had the chance to turn selected players of his into super stars.
Needless to say i disagree of course.

Yeah, I'm just guessing and playing devil's advocate, but I did think if we're going to start naming specific games then maybe do more than just look at the surface.

_________________

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 19:05

Dalfort wrote:

I thought "farming" was when you are dominating play and start making passes or safety net for a hand off to an AG2 (1) player to score. I hadn't realised that picking was part of the farming process and that I have been enabling more farmers than the UK government...

When elfballing and farming are indistinguishable maybe it's time to back off the outrage of farming.

Desultory

Joined: Jun 24, 2008

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 20:13

[quote="ArrestedDevelopment"]

Rawlf wrote:

it might make sense to point out that this was two teams with wildly different timescales for the collection of spp and allocation of skills, which in turn, might explain both frustration and accusation of "farming".

I have a similar example where my opponents team has 135 games under his belt https://fumbbl.com/p/team?id=654805
and I have 17 games completed https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=744385... This was in blackbox.
This arguably may or may not highlight the point. But from the beginning, personally I was at a disadvantage. Of course it doesn't help when I have 3 tackle skills that become relatively worthless and a 110k really stupid big guy and other 'missmanagements'. But in my eyes, my #5, #7 and #11 have not developed to make them 'worth' their value.

I'm sure there are many other examples probably better than this, but Team Value(TV) does not reflect development time. I wonder if a solution to this problem, and a solution to min maxing in general would be to have some kind of cap in the difference of completed games between teams, so these 'unfair' matchups don't occur. Surely this has been suggested previously.

Another thing I find interesting is that my Fanfactor is 9 and his is 8 after so many games. That is messed up. Really what is the point of fanfactor. The Op's ff is 8 and the opponents teams is 5 despite the massive difference in games.

It's obviously not cheating as it's all within the rules, but it's an obvious game flaw that could be easily solved.

Last edited by Desultory on %b %23, %2016 - %20:%Aug; edited 1 time in total

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Aug 23, 2016 - 20:19

[quote="Desultory"]

ArrestedDevelopment wrote:

Rawlf wrote:

it might make sense to point out that this was two teams with wildly different timescales for the collection of spp and allocation of skills, which in turn, might explain both frustration and accusation of "farming".

I have a similar example where my opponents team has 135 games under his belt https://fumbbl.com/p/team?id=654805
and I have 17 games completed https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=744385... This was in blackbox.
This arguably may or may not highlight the point. But from the beginning, personally I was at a disadvantage. Of course it doesn't help when I have 3 tackle skills that become relatively worthless and a 110k really stupid big guy and other 'missmanagements'. But in my eyes, my #5, #7 and #11 have not developed to make them 'worth' their value.

I'm sure there are many other examples probably better than this, but Team Value(TV) does not reflect development time. I wonder if a solution to this problem, and a solution to min maxing in general would be to have some kind of cap in the difference of completed games between teams. Surely this has been suggested.

Another thing I find interesting is that my Fanfactor is 9 and his is 8 after so many games. That is messed up. Really what is the point of fanfactor.

So in Box there is new team protection. Basically the algorithm makes it so that the suitability of a match between two teams, one with over 30 games played and one with under 30 games played is very unlikely if not impossible at times. Edit: ArrestedDevelopment says this is wrong and I'm wrong and he's going to give me what for in a moment.

I feel that the lifespan of a team is probably a much stronger indicator of how well the team is built and how competitive it is rather than of pure TV but I'd want to do an analysis of how much of a predictive value lifespan is in terms of winning.

Last edited by mrt1212 on %b %23, %2016 - %20:%Aug; edited 1 time in total