dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
 Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 16:37 |
 
|
@ Garion
I will grant that TS was more like TV than TR in that it cost you to put actual skills/stats on the field rather than SPP, but that does not make TS like TV. There were a lot of caveats and modifiers for skill combos (blodge, natural one-turners etc), as well as the cumulative modifier, for example. I agree that TV is not a good indicator of team capability - I've said as much myself with the other three examples I gave which you've not addressed.
| Quote: | | Have any leagues been around long enough to feel the effect of CPOMB or min maxing etc... yet? |
On Cyanide, certainly. OCC has been around for 11 seasons (minimum 9 games per season) now and there hasn't been a basher champion since season 4. All the high-TV Chaos teams which were able to stay at high TV due to the lack of bank are now falling by the wayside. This season Div 1 has no claw teams in it.
That said, I do agree with maintaining a soft cap on teams, and I think SE does that well (although it too could be improved), and the bank would assist that soft cap with being a touch firmer.
-------------
@ VoodooMike
| Quote: | | The point was that the typical game does not involve a deliberate handicapping of one of the two sides. An "element of luck" such as the use of dice still applies evenly to both sides, so while luck may affect things, the rules of the game do not favour one side or the other. |
Maybe not, but BB does just that, and deliberately. There is even that same handicap in chess.
| Quote: | | Then the difference in opinion you're facing may simply be about how much stock we should put in Galak's opinion. |
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.
| Quote: | | What does it subtract from it, objectively? It is really nothing more than a personal choice. This again goes to whether someone else's valid choices within the game's design can really diminish your ability to enjoy it. If it did not add to the individual's enjoyment of the game, it is unlikely they'd do it. Some people do it, so it must add to the game for them. |
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.
| Quote: | | That's not really a response to what you quoted. What I said is that obviously not everyone agrees that minmaxing is boring or they wouldn't be doing it. |
I misunderstood what you meant - I thought that you were saying that FUMBBL was popular, not minmaxing. 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.
| Quote: | | What, pray tell, makes you think that things would be improved in anything approaching an objective fashion, if the 15% limit were removed? You say yourself that FUMBBL is the best available option, so what, if anything, are you citing as your reason for this belief other than Galak's casual say-so? |
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 ].
-------------
I just want to state once again for clarity that I don't think the 15% limit should be removed entirely. I've made a couple of suggestions for what I think would be improvements ("matching on a fairly flexible "games played" algorithm combined with a (very) loose TV element" and smoothing out the curve shown here  ) but I am not advocating a free-for-all.
The suggestion from Koadah and also above from Happygrue would also seem to resolve many issues. Allowing a team to set the percentage above its own TV it wishes to play would allow that variety as a preference. I personally don't see the major issue with low-TV flings, but if it's the hobbits that frighten you about that idea then all is lost  |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 16:44 |
|
A "play up" option would be nice. Let the individual coach figure it out, add 10% to his TV (or to 1M if less) for matching purposes.
I can see it. You go to gamefinder, and instead of having two numbers separated by a slash, you get a little table. That would be cool. So you'd have team, race, coach, time active, TV, opponent range... and whatever else you wanted to add. If you hit the "play up" button, your range would be between ~95.6% of yours (22/23) and ~126.5% of yours (1.1x1.15). If you didn't, it would be as-is, 87% to 115%. But you wouldn't have to figure it out; you'd just see ranges and compare. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 16:47 |
|
While I like Koadahs idea most out of all that I have seen here, it just opens up a whole new world of min-maxing which would stop people letting them self play up or down.
Would you want to play against a rookie Norse team with all linemen 1 Snow Troll and enough induements to get a Wizard and Icepelt every game? while you just had a rookie team?
I certinaly wouldn't and I played against a team that had enough inducements to do that when the client was in Beta phase and no restrictions were in place.
The TV system will always be open to abuse and unless that can be stamped out in some way (which I can't ever see happening because the admin are busy enough without having to police everygame) then it would probably not work. |
_________________
Last edited by Garion on %b %10, %2011 - %16:%Oct; edited 1 time in total |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 16:47 |
|
@ PainState
| Quote: | | Thus coming full circle...the 15% rule is such a small issue in the big picture. IMO the core problem is to many coaches with to many diffrent "views" on what is fun and why they keep coming back playing hundreds of matches. |
They keep coming back because this is the best option available, as I said to Mike. That doesn't make it the best option possible (although it is very good).
@ Garion
Maybe not with a rookie norse team, but it might be nice to develop your TV-efficient 1400TV Amazon team and have enough inducements to take on some of the bigger teams, or play low-TV halflings.
| Quote: | | it just opens up a whole new world of min-maxing which would stop people letting them self play up or down. |
I'm not sure I get what you mean - example? |
|
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 16:51 |
|
@Garion: How do you like dode's original suggestion that the limit would be that number_of_games_played_by_newer_team * (factor=1.15) > number_of_games_played_by_older_team?
This would mean that it would not be possible to stalk for 1M start-up teams. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 16:51 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | I'm not sure I get what you mean - example? |
One example was in my previous post. Read it again
| uuni wrote: | @Garion: How do you like dode's original suggestion that the limit would be that number_of_games_played_by_newer_team * (factor=1.15) > number_of_games_played_by_older_team?
This would mean that it would not be possible to stalk for 1M start-up teams. |
yup i get that, but it still wouldnt stop new teams getting a few easy early games in by min maxing for early inducements, if thats what they wanted to do. |
_________________
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 16:58 |
|
| PainState wrote: |
We have all heard the lamentations of a coach who is a week away from a tournament start and has his team slagged by some coach who is portrayed as a team killer because he does not care about anything else, he is said to ruin the fun for others. |
I thought the whole reason for creating the Box was to avoid all the "prepping for Majors" coaches.  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - 19th June! ---- All Star Bowl XII - Teams of Stars - Sign up NOW! |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 16:59 |
|
@ Garion
So now you're arguing that inducements give you a >50% chance of winning? What is that based on?
10 linemen + Snow Troll = 640k
Wizard = 150k
Icepelt = 330k
Total = 1120k with no rerolls.
Yeah, I'd play against that.
Teams have sweet-spots. For Norse and Zons that sweet-spot is low. Allowing teams to play outside their sweet-spots would mean a wider variety of well-matched games. |
Last edited by dode74 on %b %10, %2011 - %17:%Oct; edited 1 time in total |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 17:05 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | PainState wrote: |
We have all heard the lamentations of a coach who is a week away from a tournament start and has his team slagged by some coach who is portrayed as a team killer because he does not care about anything else, he is said to ruin the fun for others. |
I thought the whole reason for creating the Box was to avoid all the "prepping for Majors" coaches. |
Yeah then they created this thing called BOX MAJORS. 
Actually the Box was created for one primary reason
1: Did not have to find matches. Just click and play.
which then dove tailed into:
#2-#100 other unitended issues. |
_________________
Comish of the: 
Last edited by PainState on %b %10, %2011 - %17:%Oct; edited 1 time in total |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 17:07 |
|
No I'm not, where did I say that???
I am pointing out that some races can really exploit the inducements early on. Here is another example -
amazons -
11 linewomen
1 RR
then enough to induce Bertha Bigfist and helmut early on
would you want to play that team with a race with a rookie team that doesnt have block and tackle in it? I personally wouldn't and I wouldnt want to play that norse team I posted above. |
_________________
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 17:13 |
|
| Quote: | | No I'm not, where did I say that??? |
Here:
| Quote: | | it still wouldnt stop new teams getting a few easy early games in by min maxing for early inducements |
That suggests that in those cases inducements should create a >50% win%.
Reference the zons, I'd happily play against them with dwarves or norse, but I think that even a standard Zon team is a pain for low-TV teams of almost any other race to play against. There aren't many teams with neither block or tackle in a starting lineup, btw. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 17:21 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Quote: | | No I'm not, where did I say that??? |
Here:
| Quote: | | it still wouldnt stop new teams getting a few easy early games in by min maxing for early inducements |
That suggests that in those cases inducements should create a >50% win%.
Reference the zons, I'd happily play against them with dwarves or norse, but I think that even a standard Zon team is a pain for low-TV teams of almost any other race to play against. There aren't many teams with neither block or tackle in a starting lineup, btw. |
Lol you would happily play against them with Dwarves or Norse....??? Well then play ranked, because you cant pick in Blackbox?
and exactly... I didnt say anything like - "So now you're arguing that inducements give you a >50% chance of winning? What is that based on?"
Im just making the point that the game is exploitable no matter what rules you put in place. Why change it when it is already a good place to play?
As already stated the site offers great alternatives, like ranked where you can avoid match ups or league where you can play which ever rules you like. |
_________________
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 17:29 |
|
@ Garion
My point was that Zons are a hard match with almost any team at low TV, whether they play the roster you suggested or not.
I already said what I thought you were saying about inducements - that it is the inducements making the difference with those matchups. In fact it is simply the case that those teams are good low-TV teams.
| Quote: | | Im just making the point that the game is exploitable no matter what rules you put in place. Why change it when it is already a good place to play? |
Am I not allowed to express a preference and maybe start a debate? It seems that there are a few other people here who think that 15% is too narrow and that other alternatives might work, so if this is about preference maybe a poll is in order
I don't actually want a poll though, as I don't think it'd prove anything - objectively, increasing the 15% or putting in some other method as suggested will increase the odds of a matchup happening, increase the variety of equally-efficient races you can play against, and increase the use of inducements. Using the method Koadah suggested enable you to do so at the coach's preference - choice is a "good thing", right?
I've asked this several times but am yet to get an answer: Did you guys really intend for 95% of your games to take place within 150TV of each other, for over 50% of your games to be so closely matched by TV that even Babes can't be taken? |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 17:30 |
|
oh jesus christ, is it that time of month again?
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2011 - 17:32 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | PainState wrote: |
We have all heard the lamentations of a coach who is a week away from a tournament start and has his team slagged by some coach who is portrayed as a team killer because he does not care about anything else, he is said to ruin the fun for others. |
I thought the whole reason for creating the Box was to avoid all the "prepping for Majors" coaches. |
Yeah then they created this thing called BOX MAJORS.
Actually the Box was created for one primary reason
1: Did not have to find matches. Just click and play.
which then dove tailed into:
#2-#100 other unitended issues. |
I don't think Box "prepping for Majors" has quite the same meaning with all that C-POMB about. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - 19th June! ---- All Star Bowl XII - Teams of Stars - Sign up NOW! |
|
|
|
| |
Finishing the 60 Gam...
Search
