harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
 Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 16:39 |
 
|
Favours elves far too much I'm afraid. It shouldn't be that everybody is playing with 16 man rosters, but that is a strategic aim because it's more beneficial. It should still be (or should be) a struggle. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 16:44 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | Favours elves far too much I'm afraid. It shouldn't be that everybody is playing with 16 man rosters, but that is a strategic aim because it's more beneficial. It should still be (or should be) a struggle. |
Please expand on why it benefits elves to much? It seems to me "elf" coaches are always moaning and complaining about trying to maintain a 12 man roster.
Also if you take the PaulHicks PoV, is it not a good thing that a bunch of rookie elves are running around? Easy CAS!!!!
You do not want them to run out of elves. It gets boring when you are only chasing 5 of them around on the pitch.
  |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 16:45 |
|
dode wrote
"@ Endzone - ok, at least 30k. My objection still stands, though: it's arbitrary. In fact, it's exactly as arbitrary as skill costs are now. Then there's the issue of how the meta effects the skills. A meta which is bash-heavy will put minimal emphasis on tackle, while an zon or elf-heavy meta will increase the requirement for the skill. Under your system it's a flat cost regardless, while under the one I have suggested it simply comes down to how you deal with the meta regardless of what it is."
The price of 30K for a core skill (like block, dodge, mighty blow) is not entirely arbitrary - it is based on playing over 1200 games on Fumbbl and noting the relative value of skills compared to other resources. I'm not precious about it being 30K but we would want something simple and an increase from 20K seems like a move in the right direction.
There is something to be said for matching opponents based on performance - this is how tournaments work but it works best when there is something at stake. If coaches were playing in Blackbox to build a team for the next major - and their priority was team building - then it could be in their interests to lose some games to then get some easier matches to make the team building easier. I think this could be a nightmare for admins to manage and could reduce Black Box to being an uncompetitive division. I am not just talking about coaches throwing games here, in practice what would happen more is that some coaches would push winning much further down their priority list, they wouldn't be throwing the games as such, just not trying very hard. I think any system which rewards losing in a competitive division is dubious. I think your idea would work if everybody's top priority was to win the match they were playing (i.e. like in a tournament) but in general black box play often team building or some other meta goal will be higher on the caches list of priorities.
All that aside what other impact would there be of matching by team performance? Well it would certainly be a leveller in terms of win %'s which is probably a good thing. I can imagine coaches being proud of having the highest team ranking at that getting quite competitive. I would see coaches of similar skill being paired more often - perhaps more competitive matches at the cost of less variety of opponents. Blackbox would be a bit like a ladder system for teams. Most of this sounds okay but my biggest concern would be the complete mismatches of low TV against high TV, I don't think those games would be much fun. I also think it could be letting the leash of the big clawpomb teams. They would no longer be matched together and would get to feed off the smaller teams - would this drive everyone towards massive clawpomb teams even more than now? Would it scare everyone off wanting to win in blackbox, knowing that if thy won too may they would be matched against one of the monsters?
All just my thoughts. I don't think it is a bad idea as such but I think the consequences need to be thought through carefully. |
|
|
kilinrax
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 16:46 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | Please expand on why it benefits elves to much? It seems to me "elf" coaches are always moaning and complaining about trying to maintain a 12 man roster. |
I'd imagine because you're getting 350k of bench for no inducement cost rather than ~250k of bench for most non-elf/non-dwarf teams. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 16:51 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | | Favours elves far too much I'm afraid. It shouldn't be that everybody is playing with 16 man rosters, but that is a strategic aim because it's more beneficial. It should still be (or should be) a struggle. |
Please expand on why it benefits elves to much? It seems to me "elf" coaches are always moaning and complaining about trying to maintain a 12 man roster.
Also if you take the PaulHicks PoV, is it not a good thing that a bunch of rookie elves are running around? Easy CAS!!!!
You do not want them to run out of elves. It gets boring when you are only chasing 5 of them around on the pitch.
|
Sure they moan about it and they do struggle. However that is part of playing Elves. Even when they're struggling for 11 players (and they get that with JMs) they are still competitive.
I actually (again) play my league with what in reality amounts to 16 men teams when they're developed and it's dominated by Elves. It's fine for me......but it's not what we want as the 'main' game in my opinion.
There has to be an attrition for AV7 teams, but something they can recover from.
Again options are great, everything should be an option, just not in the main arena. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 16:53 |
|
@ Endzone - yeah, I get the idea. Perhaps arbitrary was the wrong word. Subjective is better. You say 30k, another guy with 1400 games says 40k, another says 35k... And then there is deciding what qualifies as "core".
I'm only suggesting matching by performance for Box. In tournaments the tournament matching system would come into play, and any handicap would go. The idea of a tournament is to find the best coach/team, so handicapping doesn't seem appropriate in that meta. Not using a performance weighting in tournaments would resolve that entire issue.
Why would CPOMBers not be matched together? They'd likely have similar TVs and handicaps, and would make them play against each other more if anything. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 16:53 |
|
| kilinrax wrote: |
I'd imagine because you're getting 350k of bench for no inducement cost rather than ~250k of bench for most non-elf/non-dwarf teams. |
Well until the mouse responds and clarifies, lets assume you are correct.
Well, the real question is would Wood Elf coaches,lets say, want to invest 350K of treasury to buy 5 lino's?
I also thought one of the big issues with elves was they are to expensive to afford a deep bench. Not expensive in terms of TV but rather cold, hard, Gold. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 16:58 |
|
| kilinrax wrote: | | PainState wrote: | | Please expand on why it benefits elves to much? It seems to me "elf" coaches are always moaning and complaining about trying to maintain a 12 man roster. |
I'd imagine because you're getting 350k of bench for no inducement cost rather than ~250k of bench for most non-elf/non-dwarf teams. |
Yes this is one aspect, others are:
*More make weights to take hits
*Less chance of being men down (one of the main tactics against elves)
*Ability to tailor more elves for more specific jobs, as you have a guaranteed 5 men for LOS duties
*Constantly having enough men dampens down a run of bad cas luck
*And simply healthy Elven teams would dominate |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 17:00 |
|
| PainState wrote: |
I also thought one of the big issues with elves was they are to expensive to afford a deep bench. Not expensive in terms of TV but rather cold, hard, Gold. |
This is good. Having the aspect of saving and scrimping for players is how it should be for light, expensive teams.
Playing with a 11 man roster when you could have a bigger one is the issue....not being forced to play with a 11 man roster due to financial constraints.
11 Wood Elf rosters are still extremely effective. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 17:01 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | kilinrax wrote: | | PainState wrote: | | Please expand on why it benefits elves to much? It seems to me "elf" coaches are always moaning and complaining about trying to maintain a 12 man roster. |
I'd imagine because you're getting 350k of bench for no inducement cost rather than ~250k of bench for most non-elf/non-dwarf teams. |
Yes this is one aspect, others are:
*More make weights to take hits
*Less chance of being men down (one of the main tactics against elves)
*Ability to tailor more elves for more specific jobs, as you have a guaranteed 5 men for LOS duties
*Constantly having enough men dampens down a run of bad cas luck
*And simply healthy Elven teams would dominate |
Good points. Then why in the hell are "elfs" not running 16 man rosters then? Is 300-350 TV on the bench such a TV game breaker? |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
kilinrax
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 17:10 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | Well, the real question is would Wood Elf coaches,lets say, want to invest 350K of treasury to buy 5 lino's? |
Just cast my eye over the top coaches' teams for each flavour of elf; largest treasury I spotted was 340k (High and Wood), active and 540k (Wood), retired. Good point. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2016 - 17:13 |
|
*This is in a universe where everybody got 5 subs for free/compared to how we play now.
*Spiralling Expenses take their toll
*Teams are sweet spotting at a TV they can win at
*Wood Elf teams are continually keeping a bank to replace their key players if they lost them in one game
*CPOMB teams are currently dominant at high TV and scare teams into keeping as far away from that band as possible (ok claw doesn't scare woodies, but uber bash does)
The last means that Elven teams do not get an all round playing experience at high TV. It's mostly cas causing orientated teams, in the long term that's hard to recover from.
We've also seen in the past coaches feel dismayed by constant damage caused to their light expensive teams (Woodies being the most notable) even though their win records haven't really taken a dip. |
|
|
AzraelEVA
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2016 - 19:28 |
|
I think there shouldn't be a rule that disallows stalling.
But rules that gives an incentive to not stall should be implemented into the game.
An example for such rules could be that at the beginning of the 4th 6th and 8th turn of the defending coach during a drive a card from a random event deck is drawn and resolved.
The cards can range from: nothing happens to teams get re-rolls through fans cheerleaders to fans strike at players adjacent to the pitch border and stun them or a Wizard conjures a magical thunderstorm that strikes random lightning bolts onto the pitch.
Such a change can increase the usefulness of Fame Cheerleaders and Assistants since more Kick offs will happen while still allowing the coaches the decision to stall. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2016 - 19:41 |
|
To be quite honest, if you want to get rid of stalling the easiest thing to do would be go backwards instead of forwards - make the winner the first to three scores again.
This would eliminate ties, and make most games longer again.
But the games' current meta really, really doesn't support that. |
_________________
 |
|
PsyPhiGrad
Joined: Dec 22, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2016 - 19:51 |
|
Do any leagues turn off inducements completely? Do any tournaments turn off inducements for the playoffs? |
|
|
|
|
| |
Finishing the 60 Gam...
Search
