Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
 Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 21:12 |
 
|
Oh behave, it's only shadow, he's harmless really.
I like to picture him as Napolean Dynamite, only much fatter. Offer him a pie, never use a capital letter and tell him you hate TFF, it'll keep him quiet.
Either that, or I've heard Mars Bars do the job.  |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 21:52 |
|
SPACE MARINES |
_________________
 |
|
stej
Joined: Jan 05, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 23:52 |
|
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 23:59 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Maybe not, but BB does just that, and deliberately. There is even that same handicap in chess. |
Heh, that fell out of favour a century ago? The only time handicaps of any sort are used in chess now are for fast/blitz games, and even then only in reduction of the time allotted to the stronger player. ELO's inherent difference in treatment based on relative strength is what handles things these days.
FUMBBL reduces the inherent handicapping of the weaker player by limiting the distance between the two players. Also deliberately
| dode74 wrote: | | Maybe, but as much as some people seem to think that CRP/LRB 6 is poor, others don't. I did see a poll about it the other day (although I know you hate those), but can't seem to find it to link it. |
I think the disagreement isn't that CRP is garbage or not, I think the disagreement is with the idea that "Galak knows best in all things". Personally, I think Galak and the BBRC eyeballed most of the game's design, and that there is room for improvement. Reducing the disparity between the high and low TV participants in a match is a good adjustment, especially in an open, unlimited environment. In a closed/normal league it doesn't much matter, as you're being matched on number of games played with that team, essentially.
| dode74 wrote: | | Objectively minmaxing subtracts variety. You play fewer teams if everyone minmaxes. Personally, I prefer variety. Again, that preference is clearly subjective, but the reduction in variety isn't. It comes down to whether you want to play against a greater variety of teams or not. |
Then what you want is a game that rewards variety rather than punishes it. Blood Bowl ain't that - it specifically favours certain teams at certain TV levels, and specifically favours certain skill combinations. Blood Bowl deliberately eschews balance between races. It combines to give you a game where you have to be content with getting trashed by optimized teams if you opt not to also optimize... and to be content with your optimized team losing to higher TV optimized teams.
The alternative to that sort of game is a game based on the popular rock/paper/scissors design where there simply is no objective best - everything has a counter. Blood Bowl is clearly not that, and was not intended to be, as Galak has said.. and you do think he knows best!
| dode74 wrote: | | People minmax because it improves their chances to, just like in any other game - I'm not certain "boring" is a large factor in that particular equation. |
Winning is fun for those people, so they're simply playing in a style that pushes their particular happy buttons.
| dode74 wrote: | | The variety of teams you can play while maintaining a TV-efficient (i.e. sweetspotted) team would increase. I think that is an objective improvement because it would increase the odds of getting a game, and you'd have fewer instances of more than one person not being able to find a game in [B ]. |
The variety of teams you'd play would increase, yes, but as you increase the range's width you increase the likelihood that you'll overlap with another team's "sweet spot" TV, and since the game is designed to facour the higher TV team, it means your team will face a long list of losses to the race that happens to have its sweet spot above your race's... unless you've chosen the race that peaks at the highest TV, of course, in which case you can look forward to simply pounding on any of the lower teams you can reach!
As I've said, I do think the inability to find a game is an issue, and maybe widening the 15% range would help with that. I think, however, that it is a problem to be solved by looking at the stats and identifying the place where being unable to find a game is no longer likely, and choosing the narrowest range that allows for that. I don't think the solution is applying some random matching math that someone pulled out of their ass. |
|
|
Arktoris
Joined: Feb 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2011 - 00:09 |
|
the current 15% TV rule isn't perfect.
but it'll take a few years to get the necessary info to improve it, just like the old TR/TS rules for LRB4.
we're not there yet, so how about a deep breath and keep playing with the current rules. |
_________________
Hail to Manowar! The latest charioteer to DIE for bloodbowl! - Slain, by Ghor Oggaz |
|
Tigga
Joined: Dec 21, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2011 - 00:22 |
|
Ironically Dode probably is probably the most experienced player here when it comes to TV based matchmaking systems. It was implemented in Cyanide's original game (ok... ok... only a 9 teams), and in the upgraded version (ok... ok... still some teams/stars missing) before it was done here using FFB.
Anywho, put a CPOMB chaos/nurgle/CD team against a wood elf team 400 TV below it and watch them suffer. Wizard, babes, apos, Eldril... you're either going to have a very good shot at poaching the ball, or not feel the pain from the CPOMB as much as you otherwise would. Even out the TV and the woodies are going to suffer a bit more IMO. Same is true with a lot of the faster teams.
I'm of the firm belief that a change in the matching system can lead the system to be much more like a large organised league in terms of team development. You'll still play whenever you want, and play at random, but by putting you against teams of similar standing rather than similar TV will give both coachs more challenging (ie. fairer) games and will reduce (but not completely eradicate) minmaxing. |
|
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2011 - 01:41 |
|
| Tigga wrote: | | Ironically Dode probably is probably the most experienced player here when it comes to TV based matchmaking systems. It was implemented in Cyanide's original game (ok... ok... only a 9 teams), and in the upgraded version (ok... ok... still some teams/stars missing) before it was done here using FFB. |
Because dode74 was the first and most consistent player of that game, right? Even if that were true, it doesn't mean he has any keen insight into the mechanics of something. Being a woman doesn't, for example, automatically qualify you to be a gynecologist.
| Tigga wrote: | | Anywho, put a CPOMB chaos/nurgle/CD team against a wood elf team 400 TV below it and watch them suffer. Wizard, babes, apos, Eldril... you're either going to have a very good shot at poaching the ball, or not feel the pain from the CPOMB as much as you otherwise would. Even out the TV and the woodies are going to suffer a bit more IMO. Same is true with a lot of the faster teams. |
Under the current system it is unlikely those woodies will have to face off against that monster CLPOMB team at all unless they head past their TV sweet spot. Widen it so they do, and you'll see games where those CLPOMB teams savage the lower TV and force them into long recovery periods. Presently, those CLPOMB teams are more likely to face each other than they are to beat downward on other types of teams. Live by the claw, die by the claw.
| Tigga wrote: | | I'm of the firm belief that a change in the matching system can lead the system to be much more like a large organised league in terms of team development. You'll still play whenever you want, and play at random, but by putting you against teams of similar standing rather than similar TV will give both coachs more challenging (ie. fairer) games and will reduce (but not completely eradicate) minmaxing. |
That (incorrectly) assumes the game is designed with race balance in mind, or even an attempt at keeping races balanced at similar TVs. It is specifically not. The closest thing to "fairness" in terms of game outcome comes from teams of similar TV facing off against one another. Every time someone has looked at the win percentages based on any other factor, they find greater imbalance.
Likewise, I'd like to know what you base your statement that wood elves benefit from a significantly lower TV than the bashy team they're facing on. Is it just a personal assumption, or do the numbers support that? Certainly inducements are not made to increase your chances of victory to even 50-50, much less to the point where that higher TV team "suffers" as you say. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2011 - 04:56 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | | I'd like to know what you base your statement that wood elves benefit from a significantly lower TV than the bashy team they're facing on. Is it just a personal assumption, or do the numbers support that? Certainly inducements are not made to increase your chances of victory to even 50-50, much less to the point where that higher TV team "suffers" as you say. |
I can give you a few cases where no amount of development is better than massive underdog value. They're a minority, but they're often pretty clear.
Wood Elves: A couple skilled players, a couple Wardancers, and your choice of several awesome stars. Wood Elves love Wizards, and given their expensive AV7 line and the difficulty developing skilled line-players, and the awesomeness of low-level Dancers and low/mid-level Catchers and Throwers, a 1400 Wood Elf team can take on any 1850 team!
Skaven: Fezglitch is a steal. Rats also do well with Bloodweiser Babes. Rat Ogres aren't great players, but they're pretty good inducements. I understand that these options aren't currently running in FUMBBL, but they're quite significant in tabletop.
Norse: Norse Linos have the crappiest skill path of any ST3 player. Snow Trolls peak out at one skill, unless they double. But throw in Boomer and a Wizard, and a lack of meaningful development isn't all that important. After all, almost everybody's got what counts most! Especially when Boomer gets fixed. Then he's like a second Wizard. Until then, he's the best line-sacrifice you can hope for, once you've taken your Journeymen.
Some teams are especially vulnerable to certain kinds of inducements. Ogres, Khemri, Amazons, and Norse really hate Wizards, for example. Amazons, Wood Elves, Pro Elves, and Skaven all hate Chainsaws, as do Ghoul-heavy Undead. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2011 - 05:03 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | | I can give you a few cases where no amount of development is better than massive underdog value. They're a minority, but they're often pretty clear. |
Apply what I said in my statement that you quoted to everything you said in your posting. Is it personal "feel" on the matter, or are there numbers somewhere to back that up? |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2011 - 07:39 |
|
@ VodooMike
| Quote: | | The only time handicaps of any sort are used in chess now are for fast/blitz games, and even then only in reduction of the time allotted to the stronger player. |
Maybe my reference to synchronous chess earlier was too cryptic, but I was actually talking about the inherent advantage of white. I'm well aware of how Elo works.
| Quote: | | FUMBBL reduces the inherent handicapping of the weaker player by limiting the distance between the two players. Also deliberately |
Equating TVs doesn't reduce distance between team capability though, which is what it is supposed to do. TV is not a good measure of team capability.
| Quote: | | think the disagreement isn't that CRP is garbage or not, I think the disagreement is with the idea that "Galak knows best in all things" |
I've never stated that he does. I've posted several times that there are a number of ways I would change the base rules or house rule open leagues. Sticking to the intent of the designers is usually a good thing.
| Quote: | | Reducing the disparity between the high and low TV participants in a match is a good adjustment, especially in an open, unlimited environment. In a closed/normal league it doesn't much matter, as you're being matched on number of games played with that team, essentially. |
As I said, limiting disparity between teams is a good thing, but TV is not a good way to do that. I already suggested that a "games played" algorithm might work well.
Rather than quoting a whole bunch of stuff from the rest of your post I'll say that I think we both understand the mechanics of the game as you described them, I just disagree in their application.
In simple terms, efficient (i.e. sweetspotted) teams tend to do well at their sweetspot TV, and of two equally efficient teams the higher TV one will tend to do well.
By no means does that make games a foregone conclusion though: the element of luck and individual coach skill will make a difference. That said, all other things being equal the mechanic as summarised above should hold according to the base design of the game, and increasing the TV window across which teams can play should see teams play up and down TVs more, with the high-TV teams more likely to win as you say (despite the margins of error on observed TV differences vs win%s showing that we can't actually say that with 95% confidence).
There are a number of ways to curtail this - preventing the teams which are most efficient at high TV from getting or staying to a high TV is one obvious way to level the playing field over the long term and at the higher end of TV, and spiralling expenses (which should be used in combination with the bank for full effect) does just that by limiting how high a TV a team can reach. Personally I think that SE currently sets too high a soft-cap and that Chaos and the elf teams are able to reach and maintain (particularly in the case of Chaos) too high a TV for too long. This changes the mechanic described above a little so that the mid-TV sweetspotting teams are able to bloat a little and drop below 100% efficiency while the high-TV teams can't actually reach/maintain a very high TV and efficiency, so slightly bloated 2000TV Orcs (for example) can face slightly underdeveloped 2000TV Chaos. I suspect that won't be particularly popular though, since team building is a pastime in itself.
So yes, while I agree that the base design of the game does punish variety and straying away from certain builds, there are mechanics within the game which are there to re-enable variety. Minmaxing will still be popular (it always will be) and "peak efficiency" will shift for those high TV teams, but variety both in races played and team builds will open up again due to the extra leeway in bloat enabled.
@ JackassRampant
| Quote: | | Some teams are especially vulnerable to certain kinds of inducements. Ogres, Khemri, Amazons, and Norse really hate Wizards, for example. Amazons, Wood Elves, Pro Elves, and Skaven all hate Chainsaws, as do Ghoul-heavy Undead. |
Which is precisely what was being alluded to in the OP. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2011 - 07:48 |
|
dode and voodoo, would you too go back to Cyanide forums or whereever you came from...
we don't care which of you has the bigger...um .. the most "experience" with that steaming pile of horse poo. |
_________________
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2011 - 07:53 |
|
Is that another post purporting to represent Chister's views again, pythrr, or do you simply not like the conversation? You don't have to read it if you don't like it, you know?
(Apologies to the mods for responding to the obvious troll) |
|
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2011 - 08:55 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | Reducing the disparity between the high and low TV participants in a match is a good adjustment, especially in an open, unlimited environment. In a closed/normal league it doesn't much matter, as you're being matched on number of games played with that team, essentially.
|
Do you *really* think that? Have you ever tried to run a closed league of more than 30 matches? By that time team development will have spread so far that the underdog has no chance, if he receives no help. Handicaps were too weak. Inducements work much better.
Inducements are much more important in closed leagues than in open environments, as in an open environment you can always find someone on your level. In a closed league the teams will spread out too far too quickly. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2011 - 09:23 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | Is that another post purporting to represent Chister's views again, pythrr, or do you simply not like the conversation? You don't have to read it if you don't like it, you know?
(Apologies to the mods for responding to the obvious troll) |
Why don't you try putting more words into my mouth, dode?
When did I ever try to represent what "Chister" (sic) says/thinks?
(re your weakly linked "evidence"): saying "I guess" indicates speculation, no? Not "purporting to represent".
I was objecting to the two of you bringing an argument about Cyanide into these forums.
So, anyone who disagrees with you gets called a troll? Well, short of invoking Hitler, one can't argue with that... |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2011 - 09:44 |
|
Anyway....
I think this thread is startign to just go round in circles.
the points raised... some people think a formula can be made to make match making more interesting and diverse. To them I say go a create the formula then let us see it and stop shouting about it until you have made such a formula.
Some people would like a sliding scale for their team so they can choose to play at a larger TV gap to play with inducements. This is the most reasonable suggestion in my view. But I also do not think it would get used for any length of time, its a huge amount of work for Christer and it would likely be a bit of a novelty for say a month? Then people would largely ignore it except for the odd stunty coach, but then who would they play against if no other teams wanted to play out side the 15% zone? Other stunty teams I'm guessing. Also comes the problem - what is the BowlBot actually meant to do? Is it meant to preference widder TV match ups or closer together ones, because even if you moved the goal posts with the percentage allowance the bot would still find you the fairest match up possible.
Finally comes the big issue for me. Newcomers to the site want as fair match ups as possible, preferably with no inducements where ever possible. If in their first 10 games on the site they play some games that they perceive to be unfair it would scare them off, even if the match ups arent unfair, it is their perception that is important. Personally I also want to play without inducements and with as close a TV to my opponent as possible in an open division. Playing without gimicky inducements where two teams should be eqaully matched makes it a battle of coaching ability (and of course luck to a lesser extent too).]
and as said many times before if you want to play using more inducements at wider TV gaps, play League, it is what it is there for. The site has options for everyone. If you want to exploit the halflings inducements in an open division play ranked. If you want a quicik game where both teams are evenly matched then play blackbox, yes people might tyry and exploit the TV rule by min maxing but it is quite rare really. If you dont want to play vs loads of CPOMB teams in teh box it is easy, just dont play above 1800 Tv. I don't and I get a lot more enjoyment out of blackbox because of it. I usually retire my teams once their TV gets too high, because I just find those gamse incredible boring. But no amount of jiggerypockery is going to stop the high TV bracket in the Box being full to the brim of CPOMB teams, that is the most powerful skill combo in the game for inflicting damage, a lot of people enjoy that so it will always be very common. |
_________________
 |
|
|
|
| |
Finishing the 60 Gam...
Search
