Colin
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Sep 03, 2003 - 19:43 |
 
|
Up until now, I thought the Strength system worked just fine; however, my 209/209 high Elves just got the most thorough beating (I mean in violence, not score - I lost narrowly due to lack of players at the end) from a much more experienced and skill-heavy 229/198 or so 10-man Dark Elf team. Their coach didn't even play all that well. My luck sucked at crucial points, but I did need a lot more dice rolls because of my team's relative lack of skills and stat increases.
The overall system, on looking at the formula, seems comprehensive, but the weighting needs further modification (one change I would suggest is Piling On should add more to a players individul 'cost' if they are stronger or have Jump Up).
My main suggestion would be that if the team has a number of players (say 2 or 3 at least) valued at over 200k adjusted cost, a further increase to team Strength is applied. Perhaps the increase would be greater, the more players over 200k there are. The increase could either be geometric or logarithmic in relation to the number of such players.
Alternately, you could make a more complex system that adds modifiers depending on the number of players over certain cost bands. Either method would reflect the large impact these strong/skillful players have on the game.
In the game I mentioned, it did seem that those players over 200k or so did dominate the game, and the fact there were 3 or 4 of them (I didn't have 1) made life a struggle - it felt a bit like playing a rookie team against a team front-loaded with Star Players. We need something in the formula to combat 'the Star Player effect'. |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2003 - 22:14 |
|
| Mr-Klipp wrote: |
Because they *are* stronger, and thus less likely to *need* them. Rerolls are costed by how usefull they will be to a team. A team with better stats and more skills needs the rerolls less, and therefore they will give them less benefit, and therefore they are cheaper. |
But you just said that a system that takes account of players being unable to use a reroll or having skills which replaced one isn't needed??
Which one is it? Make your mind up. 
| Mr-Klipp wrote: |
No matter what you do, there will be someone who disagrees with you. The fact that you can find someone who disagrees with an idea does not in itself make it wrong. |
Erhm, what you said wasn't even an idea, its an opinion that the current way works well. EvolveToAnarchism pointed out a situation with evidence that it didn't... discussing how to improve something is not disagreeing its trying to help.
 |
|
|
Malthor
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2003 - 22:26 |
|
I like the Str system generally. However, some bits are just screwey.
Eg a Linerat with +1 AG is worth 95.
7347... same as a Wood Elf Lineman who is worth 75.
The 4 AG linerat is going to be a chump that gets mashed/targetted by opponents... he doesn't have Block to protect him, he can't buy Dodge like the Wood Elf lino can... this guy's life is going to be nasty brutish and short... it just seems bizarred to me that an AG4 linerat is worth more than a Linerat with Block. The latter is more useful most of the time cos the Skaven already have 4 Gutter Runners with AG4, Dodge and 2 better movement... and everybody knows that Linerats are just supposed to be the fodder hehehe.
M |
_________________
ex Monkey (original Team Approvers in 2004)
ex Admin
ex Ranked Tournament Manager
still disliked all round! |
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 04, 2003 - 08:07 |
|
A few facts before I discuss the issue.
RR=40K Amazon, Dwarf
RR=50K Chaos Dwarf, Dark Elf, High Elf, Human, Wood Elves
RR=60K Goblin, Halfling, Lizardmen, Norse, Orc, Skaven,
RR=70K Chaos, Undead, Khemri, Lustrian, Necromantic, Nurgle's Rotters, Ogres, Vampire
RR=90K Chaos Pact
1. Less need due to use RR=lower valued.
According to this logic amazons and dwarves need RRs the least at all TR. I think there are ample blodge elven teams that look alot like blodge amazon teams except that the elves have AG4. This would imply that the elves need the RRs less and should thus be valued less. There are several block, guard heavy chaos teams around with surehanded beastmen "runners" contrast them with block, guard heavy dwarven team that uses their runners as blitzers rather than passers. Both teams play a grinding running game. Who needs the RRs more? It's debatable but the case could be made that the dwarves do because they are slower and will need them for GFIs but realistically, I'd say they both need them just as much. Do I need to go on? I can provide many examples where the need has nothing to do with the teams race, but what skills the players have.
2. As I've discussed with you before, the teams with lower reroll costs have in general one or more of the following. More skills, better skill access, and higher stats.
a) More skills should be taken care of by STR not race.
b) Higher stats should be taken care of by STR not race. (Malthor's recent example demonstrates why doing otherwise can cause problems)
c) Skill access is only relevant if people actually use the access they are given. I've seen lots of elven teams that don't have access to don't have throwers, why should there TRR be valued because they have "access" to hypothetical passing skills. That whole point becomes irrelevant because of double rolls (1 in 6) which breaks down those barriers.
3. More need=more value.
Playing elves has shown me how powerful a RR can be. I'll provide a scenario: player 1 space short of blitzing distance with opponents on opposing sides of him.
Case 1: Dark Blitzer lineman with block and dodge.
Case 2: Ghoul with block and dodge.
Both need to make 2 dodge rolls, a GFI roll and a block roll. In whose hands is the RR more effective?
I'd wager that the RRs is much more likely to result in a successful blitz in the hands of a dark elven team. Thus I'd conclude that the RR is much more effective in the hands of a dark elven team in this scenario. But who's RR is valued more highly by the STR formula? The value of the RR has little to do with need but with what it allows you to do.
To further illustrate the subjective value of judging what various races need to do.
Case 1. I play my elves in a "pansy" style, I don't leave any players in my opponents tackle zones. Thus I make tons of dodge rolls every turn with no dodge skills yet. I need lots of RRs.
Case 2. I play a ball control chaos offense. I use strategic placement of guards so that I always get 2 db and never have to dodge or pass. I've got a sure handed runner. I don't need lots of RRs to follow my game plan.
Whose RRs are more valuable? Whose are weighed as more valuable by the STR?
My conclusion: The effectiveness of RRs (and subsequent ideal STR weighting) has very little to do with initial team race and more to do with what skills your team has and how you use them.
4. Other reasons for why RRs vary.
I posted several reason why their costs vary. Taking a look at the above list of RR costs might give some hints at why RRs cost what they do. I'll post just a few theories.
a) Undead pay a premium on RRs because they have regeneration and can raise their opponents dead. Therefore if their RRs were costed the same as everyone else they'd get way too many as their player replacement costs are much lower.
b) Pact teams pay a premium to stunt their team growth because they have access to 3 BGs and a wide variety of races. If their RRs were cheap they'd outpower teams once their team started to develop.
c) Chaos pay a premium because of their access to mutations.
Conclusion: The cost of RRs may have less to do with how effective they are ONFIELD but more with how they play into team growth (or how they balance out starting rosters).
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism |
|
|
alterationX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 05, 2003 - 23:14 |
|
Norse Lineman 6 3 3 7 Block, Dirty Player, Tackle (105)
Norse Thrower 6 3 3 7 Block, Pass, Sure Hands (95)
hm, does it make sense that one is more valuable than the other? |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Colin wrote: | | (I mean in violence, not score - I lost narrowly due to lack of players at the end) |
This is a key point.. Strength _only_ values the ability to win.. The aim here is to have it give an indication on your chances to win the game if you are willing to sacrifice the entire team to acheive it.
-- Christer |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 06, 2003 - 00:59 |
|
Do stat increases count twice? As skill and in the stat-calculation? |
|
|
Flynn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 06, 2003 - 02:05 |
|
alteration
go find the rules on team creation
different skills are worth different amounts
because of how much they help your team |
_________________
Proud to be a professor in Wuhan's Fouling Academy
Goodbye Cusi |
|
Colin
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 06, 2003 - 02:56 |
|
| Christer wrote: | | Colin wrote: | | (I mean in violence, not score - I lost narrowly due to lack of players at the end) |
This is a key point.. Strength _only_ values the ability to win.. The aim here is to have it give an indication on your chances to win the game if you are willing to sacrifice the entire team to acheive it.
-- Christer |
By the 4th or 5th turn second half, the game was over as a contest. I'd played out of my skin, my opponent had not played all that well (and has acknowledged this). The best result I could possibly have managed was a draw to take the game into OT - it is true that with a little more luck earlier, I might have had a lead by the time most of my team was off the pitch, but I think equal coaches with equal luck would have found that the other team was a lot better than mine. Or maybe I'm wrong and my luck stank again, I dunno...watch the replay, it was in the X Cup first round:
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=112264
Edit: I just took my own advice and watched the replay - it was even worse than I remembered it...that failed 3+ pickup (rolled snake-eyes) was a a killer... |
|
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 06, 2003 - 12:17 |
|
| Colin wrote: | Up until now, I thought the Strength system worked just fine; however, my 209/209 high Elves just got the most thorough beating (I mean in violence, not score - I lost narrowly due to lack of players at the end) from a much more experienced and skill-heavy 229/198 or so 10-man Dark Elf team. Their coach didn't even play all that well. My luck sucked at crucial points, but I did need a lot more dice rolls because of my team's relative lack of skills and stat increases.
|
I took a brief look at your roster, and it looks like you were suffering from an inflated STR due to a 14 player roster.
I revisited the STR formula for how it handles the number of players and it appears that it gives a minute discount for "excess players" but that discount is applied to the total STR value of ALL the players.
I think it would make more sense if the discount were applied to the individual players who are determined "excess" and that the discount be increased significantly. That would involve sorting the players by value and applying various discount values to the "cheapest" players.
I have a feeling that this would also further complicate the discount that teams get for playing shorthanded. It sounds like a lot of work, but I think it's needed so you don't encourage coaches to stick with an 11 or 12 player roster. Or even worse encouraging rank-hunting coaches to stalk those teams with bloated rosters.
My brief return to playing games in open has given me knew perspective on the STR formula. I'm just suprised that other coaches aren't providing feedback on the STR formula. It was easy for me to notice some bugs as all the teams I was playing pointed out some flaw with the STR formula, namely bloated STRs from too many players or STR inflating high cost RRs.
If a handicap system ever gets implemented, this will make the STR formula even more unmanageable. Rather than worry even more about it. I think I'll be returning to only playing league/tournament games.
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism |
|
|
slackman
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 06, 2003 - 18:46 |
|
well, to be honest, ive noticed what has been discussed here quite a long time ago. i choose to simply ignore it and not play teams at my strength that have twice as many skills. its a bit frustrating when someone badgers you about playing their 20+games orcs against your 5games elves, but its something i have to live with. ive also been wanting to play my matches entirely unranked, but since my teams have already been created (and i neglected to click the box on my newest team because i thought i could change it if i hadnt played a game yet) im stuck w/ my average ranking. i really think the best option at this point is going to be getting rid of the str score entirely when the handicap table gets revised (and implemented) into the java client, keeping it only for ranking, which, hopefully, ill be able to opt out of.
slackman42 |
|
|
Jared
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2003 - 14:53 |
|
ive found that STR has been a largely irrelevant calculation for determing a match, ive had people with a team rating 20+ more than me come along and point out that our str are the same can we play, then my team with a few reserves or lots of reserves comes up agains ta finly oiled 11man team packed tothe gills with skills and stats that end up tipping the match,
compare TR if its more than 11 higher than expect to be disadvantaged, 21 expect to worse etc, |
_________________
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=group&op=view&group=2440
XXXtreme ball with added XX |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
