roos
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Aug 08, 2003 - 22:02 |
 
|
I have serious doubts about the str system. It gives an advantage to teams with few players. Since the last change, even though this was said to be worked on, this has become worse, at least for my wood elf team. The higher value for quick players makes it harder for WE at a higher grade than the changes made teams with few players stronger.
I think the gameplay would benefit from if it was the other way around. More players would make it possible to use some of the players just in offence or defence. Less str value for the players in the reserves would also make it a little bit harder for fast teams as they dont really benefit that much from having 11 players on the team the whole game as the more slow moving teams does. |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| roos wrote: | | Since the last change, even though this was said to be worked on, this has become worse |
worse? That implies that your strength value dropped with the change... Somehow, I doubt that happened.
-- Christer |
|
|
bohm
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2003 - 22:57 |
|
I think you are missing the point Christer, What roos is saying is that players in excces of 11 cont fully aginst the str ration even thoug they are of limited use.......
I think he has a point, the sysstem disfavours teams with moore then 11 players, and possibly teams with low AV since they need extra players.
Bohm |
|
|
Zy-Nox
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2003 - 23:33 |
|
tbh I dont have any problems with it
*you have more players....I will kill them
you have less.... I will kill them to
More still ..... I will out score you
Less...... I will outscore you more *
You dont like it ?.......
Bite me ...*
quote from The Zy-Nox playbook |
_________________
"Who made that girly Zy-kNox Mod?"
Anarchy Online |
|
Adar
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 08, 2003 - 23:55 |
|
I agree something should be made to avoid people not playing with a full team, at the moment is 12 pretty much optimal since the benefit of an extra player won't make up for the extra team str. |
|
|
Delta
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 09, 2003 - 00:23 |
|
Am I right in saying that the str system is only a guideline? A figure derived from a formula based on values on the team roster?
In which case it has no real bearing on how good a team will play? ie. how good the coach is?
I'm sure most of the coaches on fumbbl have at some point played a team with a higher str and tr and still beaten them.
If you don't trust the rating system then just look at the team roster before playing.
Problem solved.
If not....live with it. Eveyone else sees the same thing!  |
|
|
Zy-Nox
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 09, 2003 - 01:15 |
|
okay
Look at your oppos team
Look at your ops rating, you still think you can compete then play. |
_________________
"Who made that girly Zy-kNox Mod?"
Anarchy Online |
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 09, 2003 - 01:34 |
|
Str is a measure of how likely that team is to win based on players, stats, skills, ect. It does not factor in coach ability. Coaching ability is reflected in ranking. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 09, 2003 - 01:36 |
|
I don't play any matches without looking at the opponents roster first anyway thats been the case before str system was even devised
if you do the same you can't go wrong no matter what system is used |
|
|
Korhil
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 09, 2003 - 05:32 |
|
STR may not account for Reserves as you'd like to see it - lowering their value...
But when you consider the alternative, TR, Reservers count full value there too. Keep that in mind.
Or, are you honestly going to tell me you never only kept 12-13 player rosters anyway? Nothing has changed.
If you make a ranking system that benefits having lots of reservers for little value to rating then Elves will shine though even more so.
NOTHING has changed about the way Reserves are valued for the reason that they dont need to be changed, they should be worth full value... if you dont want them, dont play with them... its what everyone does when being ranked by normal TR anyway.
---Korhil |
|
|
roos
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 09, 2003 - 08:23 |
|
"If you make a ranking system that benefits having lots of reservers for little value to rating then Elves will shine though even more so."
I don't think so, WE doesnt even benefit from having 11 or even 10 players. In defence, they rely on a few stunty (not the skill) players that reach almost all over the pitch and in offence on long passes. In fact, eight players doesnt bother me when I play WE, seven is where it starts to show that the team is short of people and six is bad.
Players 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 is more or less just adding to the str without adding very much competativeness. If you play, with the goal in mind, to build up the team str this doesnt make that much a difference. But in my world, thats not the goal of the game, it is (besides having fun) the ranking of teams and coaches. For a game to be good fun you have to have some sort of goal and I like winning. In this case though, trying to win partly means not raising you str value more than your competativeness. That, however, takes away other parts that would have been great fun as having a full rooster doesn't make you more competative.
If you think that I have only found a way to play that suits me so fine that i now have taken my team to top 10, this is all fine. But if you think it's glitch in the system that a team, with any coach, can climb from below avarage to very good by changing its strategy to sacking players and play most of their games with 7-10 men on the field, lets do something about it.
Another thing is, I beleave that increased stat are underrated. With a few of those I can be competative at a much higher str level than without them. A few stars means much more than the number of the teams.
I have a few general proposals before I take a look at the now revield formula.
---
Let's make reserves influence the str less than players 1-11, giving the teams the benefit that try to make a dynamic gameplay by having reserves and possibly specializing a few players for offence/defence.
Let's make the stars of the teams count more giving the teams that try to build an evenly skilled team the benefit.
---
I dont really want to weight the system in favour for such teams, but only to be very sure that it isn't against them and even it out from that position. This is ofcourse a very personal view and it springs from the wish to be competative in the way I like to have my teams, but they can be very good suggestions even so.
/Roos
P.S.
Good coaches doesn't rely that much on the str system to find ops, but with bb, it's nevertheless the first thing all of us see that give us a hint.
D.S. |
|
|
ClubSoda
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2003 - 21:41 |
|
just my 2 cents...
imho having more players than your opponent is in any case an advantage. Suppose you have 14 and (s)he has only 11. If you knock out one of his/her players, they have to play with 10. That is still one player less than you. Before you play with but 10 players, your opponent has to kick out 4 of your players. This is offcourse only so when your players stay KO or are hurt worse.
I think that the more players you have the more penalties you should get. Whether they come from team str or something else...
just my idea here  |
_________________
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: Those that understand binary and those that don't.
"Carai An Ellisande" |
|
Warhammer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2003 - 17:25 |
|
I need to agree with Roos. Ever since the strength formula was tweaked a few weeks ago, it seems that the teams that have had several reserves on the bench have been vastly over-rated compared to the other team.
If someone has 16 players on their team and have a strength of 150, and they play a team with a strength of 150 and only 11 players, the team with 16 players is going to be mauled! Why? They only have a strength of 108 with 11 players on the pitch, whereas their opponent has all of his strength on the field! This is even more pronounced when the teams have even strength, but there is a large difference in the TR of the teams.
I propose modifying the strength formula as follows:
For each player 1-11 the team has, he is worth full value. For player 12, his worth 1/2 full value, player 13 is worth 1/4 full value, and players 14-16 are worth 1/8 full value. This is only for players that are available to play the game, of course.
This reflects that these players are not on the pitch for the majority of the time. This will serve to make teams that rely on a high player count to remain competitive, which is something I think the strength formula is trying to achieve, a good competitive game. |
|
|
Delta
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2003 - 18:29 |
|
But what if your star players happen to be no. 12+, and all the players 1-11 are without any spp's? It would handicap some teams based purely on player position.
Surely it would be more suitable to apply full value to the 11 highest valued players, and then proportion out the rest? |
|
|
Warhammer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2003 - 18:53 |
|
Delta, I thought I had said this but I did not. It would be for the available players with the highest total value. So it would rank players based upon their calculated strength, 1-11 would be hit at full value, and then 12-16 would be modified by the ratios above. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
