20 coaches online • Server time: 05:05
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post GLN 2020 Badgesgoto Post NBFL Season 24: Wint...goto Post Secret League Old Wo...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Aug 11, 2020 - 18:23 Reply with quote Back to top

I do remember that Christer didn't nerf CPOMB. Twisted Evil

To me, the cut down to 1350 is a big change to the culture of Ranked division. Box too, but to a lesser extent.

On the bright side, maybe the fact that it is 1350 and not 1300 is a sign that we can hope for movement. Mr. Green

_________________
Image
[SL] Rumble - 16 team KO - Brand new teams only - ALWAYS recruiting
Sp00keh



Joined: Dec 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Aug 11, 2020 - 19:07 Reply with quote Back to top

My thoughts on seasons and effects of it:

A redrafted team at 1300 will look a lot like a team currently which ihas just reached 1300 for the first time,
Except it will probably have a couple stars from previously, who are skilled but cost more
Mostly rookies, I reckon

A dwarf blocker with Guard is worth 90, but is he worth 110 next season? Or 130 the season after?

A wardancer with a various skills / stats is probably worth keeping for several seasons, like ramchop's Dan Dan who carried Bravado in SWL

Attrition is a lot lower and players have various healing they can do between seasons but now the main method of player churn is the redraft


I think a lot of redraft might go into buying rookies eg elves buying a squad of 14+
It's cheaper.
Also, 10 skills on 10 dudes is 30 spp
But 10 skills on 2 dudes is 62 spp (random primaries)
Also MVP is random again, it's not a D3 selection, so you can't funnel as much spp towards your 2-3 stars now, it suits spreading skills out imo


Also one of the differentiators of roster power will be, how fast can they grow during a season. Especially for tournaments

And same thing for players. Eg a werewolf skills up a lot faster than a flesh golem, so they will be more worth keeping.
It's bad for slow plodding players like that who have long careers currently, they'll probably never get more than 3, 4 skills
mister__joshua



Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 11, 2020 - 23:37
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

I’ve been thinking a lot about seasons and the draft, and ultimately whatever you pick as your values just comes down to where you want the average TV of teams to be at season end.

Christer’s second proposal of halving the per-game values and a 15 game season with a 1350TV cap will give teams around 1700-1800TV

Using the per-game values in the book and a 10 game season with no cap I believe you’ll see teams rebuy around 2000TV mark and go up from there to probably 2200-2400TV.

The system in the book is based around an average 6 game season, so their TVs come out lower. Ultimately you can adjust the length of the season, the per-game values, the rebuy cap, or all 3. All you’re really doing is choosing where you want your average and max TVs to sit.

_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude

Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum
Traul



Joined: Jun 09, 2013

Post   Posted: Aug 12, 2020 - 02:33 Reply with quote Back to top

Has any thought been given about the scheduler? To me seasons eliminates the need for TV-based matchmaking. One can use the number of games since last re-draft instead, possibly keeping first-season teams in a separate pool. That is how fixed calendar leagues work, it is how the game has always been supposed to work. In the rules, TV is used for inducements only, not for matchmaking.

That would shift the team building incentives from TV efficiency back to TV growth as it is supposed to be. The yardstick for progression should be "is it better than the same amount in inducements?", not "is it better than the worst thing my opponent can field for that amount?" That is a big difference since inducements are designed to be always worse than rostered equivalents and skills cannot be induced.
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 12, 2020 - 03:36 Reply with quote Back to top

Mattius wrote:
For what it is worth I've updated my thoughts. Keep in mind I love building up teams and it's one of my main motivators to play many days.


I agree seasons are a must, I don't want to play teams that all have mv8 blodge as standard. However, I do propose a softer seasons approach is considered, ie no cap and at least 20 games per season. Clearly after 2-3 seasons, if it's madness and chaos are dominating every major (still) then bring in the caps!


1) The new rules suggest a cap is only at the discretion of the commissioner. Hence in the spirit of strictly following the rules, no cap would seem more appropriate. This was the same with PO in bb2016. PO was an optional rule and as such was not introduced.


2) 15-20 games I really don't see as being so long. Yes some teams get to TV 2000+ in 20 games. But these have to be a minority? Especially in the box. Getting an optimal team normally takes 40+ games from my experience. You spend ages on getting it right then players die anyway.


3) A cap and small seasons basically encourage min maxing to extreme levels. I'd take a bloaty chaos team over a min maxed UW team any day. Min max Is a far worse player experience for new coaches rather than high TV is.


4) The hard caps and limited games in seasons in a way punishes worse coaches as they will need more time and games to create a competitive team. They will by default get less spp per game. I don't see the need to worry much about a level playing field when we are playing a TV matching environment (which by default levels the playing field)


5) With the 20k re hire cost, no matter how much money a team brings into next season. They will have to fire players. The days of optimal teams are over with this rule on its own.


6) No cap will allow more incentives to win, save money and care about prize pool in tourneys.


7) It's the elephant in the room, but with BB3 around the corner, fumbbl will need to think carefully about how to attract and retain players. I would guess BB3 would have seasons based on time rather than games played. This could be a more attractive proposition to many players.

Cool there are going to be some really weird matches around the 1350 mark. With no cap at least this weird zone will be mixed around a bit.


I said it before and will say it again. Either way I do trust Christer, I know no matter what he does, someone somewhere will be upset. It's a free game and no one really has the right to dictate how it should be. But I hope my thoughts may be considered with everyone else's.


1) It is optional, but it's almost certainly only optional in the case you have a tiny league, or simply change teams often. The point of the cap is to set the average maximum TV and keep all teams within a relatively close TV margin. Removing it simply gives a larger potential spread of team TVs - which is actually the primary problem the cap is being added to FUMBBL to solve.

2) 15 games is fine. 20 is almost certainly too much. Almost any team outside of stunties can hit 2m tv within 20 games if you are trying to hit high tv - especially now with reduced casualties and higher average earnings combined with less punishing EM. Besides, it's not really the first season you look at as "hitting 2m" it's the second season, and it is very much possible to do so if one wants.

3) Welcome to what seasons does. Although instead of minmax i would say "forces management decisions". You actually don't need to play a very minmax build, you could simply make a NAF style team then add rerolls and bodies over the season. It would probably work just fine too. You can also simply decide to treat each season "as a new team".

Your proposal of no cap actually makes it even simpler to minmax harder - with no cap on earnings I simply repurchase the stacked players I want at higher cost (treasury, NOT TV), fill out with fodder and end up with my team restarting the season at a lower, more efficient TV than I ended.

4) This is a concern and the formula for winnings etc Christer has put forth seeks to remedy it - a coach winning 0% of 15 on FUMBBL would simply need to bank around 200k end of season to rebuy to cap. Thus, treasury saving is a viable means of capping out and many playstyles are accounted for. Again, combined with lowered attrition and less harsh EM, this should be far from impossible.

5) Yes. 20k per season may end up being a bit/very harsh. We'll just need to see, but it's very much by design. It's not even about culling optimal teams, it's about cutting stacks on players and moving the game towards a lowered TV meta.
With no cap you sideswipe this and still allow for people to make 4 freaks and fodder if they so wish.

6) Winning should be its own incentive, and perhaps the site can list best performing seasons per race or something to set goals for people, perhaps even tie this into XFL qualification. I also think your point directly contradicts your concerns over poorer players - so they need more games and time, but you want it uncapped so the best players can make the gap even bigger?

7) Nobody knows what Cyanide will do.

8.) Or you'll simply have more TV gap games. With harder minmaxed rosters (in terms of retaining stud players). Which seasons is seeking to cut down on.

Sp00keh wrote:
It's bad for slow plodding players like that who have long careers currently, they'll probably never get more than 3, 4 skills


Try 1-2 skills.

_________________
Image
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 12, 2020 - 03:47 Reply with quote Back to top

Traul wrote:
Has any thought been given about the scheduler? To me seasons eliminates the need for TV-based matchmaking. One can use the number of games since last re-draft instead, possibly keeping first-season teams in a separate pool. That is how fixed calendar leagues work, it is how the game has always been supposed to work. In the rules, TV is used for inducements only, not for matchmaking.

That would shift the team building incentives from TV efficiency back to TV growth as it is supposed to be. The yardstick for progression should be "is it better than the same amount in inducements?", not "is it better than the worst thing my opponent can field for that amount?" That is a big difference since inducements are designed to be always worse than rostered equivalents and skills cannot be induced.


I and some others have mentioned the scheduler on discord - there are certainly a number of things that can be done with it when the average TV of teams narrows. You could even make season 2+ teams have completely unrestricted matching depending on how the meta goes - stars by and large, are very good when the majority of teams will not have lots of 2+ skill players.

_________________
Image
Kondor



Joined: Apr 04, 2008

Post   Posted: Aug 12, 2020 - 07:39 Reply with quote Back to top

I understand the need to implement seasons but it saddens me. I really enjoy high TV games. I really enjoy team building. I like to see legends and players with an obscene number of games.

At least in Ranked I would prefer seasons to be as long as possible. I have a one skill rotter with 132 games. It will be a shame to retire that kind of player.

In chat, Mr.T suggested a "Franchise Player Tag" or a "Larry Bird Rule." Allow each coach to choose one player to not accumulate the 20k each season. The coach could not choose a different player until the tagged player is retired.

Anyway, I am in mourning for my teams even though the change is probably 6+ months away on Fumbbl.
Malmir



Joined: May 20, 2008

Post   Posted: Aug 12, 2020 - 08:01 Reply with quote Back to top

Been reading the blogs and looking at the new teams. I know it hasn't arrived yet but I am now really struggling to stay positive about it.
My favourite elves are High Elves - gone
Slann are incredibly fun to play - gone
Numerous other races I like have gone and been replaced by stuff that isn't (on paper) any better to play as.
Oh but there's Old World Alliance - wash your mouth out.
I love building teams and seeing them develop over time - you've got 15 games then they are dust.
From my personal perspective and the things I enjoy, this all looks absolutely terrible.
Uber



Joined: Mar 22, 2004

Post   Posted: Aug 12, 2020 - 08:17 Reply with quote Back to top

The season rules look like they are meant for guys running their first kitchen table league, not something to be implemented on the scale of FUMBBL. The official rules of the game are one thing, but there's also a line to draw between the game and the league. I'm very interested in trying out the new system, but I also wanna keep my old toys.

_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict.
Bobs



Joined: Feb 26, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 12, 2020 - 09:29 Reply with quote Back to top

The winds of change are a blowin' you can either fight it and destroy your umbrella. Or embrace it and fly a kite.

At least wait for the full package and try it before you throw your toys in the bin.

_________________
si non modo numquam pragmaticam

Image
Sp00keh



Joined: Dec 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Aug 12, 2020 - 10:30 Reply with quote Back to top

@Malmir, yes it nerfs the kind of teams you'd build that are huge, carefully crafted, full of +stats and skills, and aimed at tournaments etc

The reason to do it, is a lot of players can't / don't have time etc to build that kind of team, but mainly it's so an ongoing (tabletop) league isn't too unassailable for a new team to join, right

By ruthlessly crushing all teams down to mid-tv, it's a great leveller


Fumbbl has had a golden age of mega team-building style gameplay since BB2016, by adopting most of its rules apart from Seasons. Which was arguably not really 'correct'

The closer you are to the apex of the current style, the more you have to lose if it changes, unfortunately
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 12, 2020 - 10:32 Reply with quote Back to top

Malmir wrote:
Been reading the blogs and looking at the new teams. I know it hasn't arrived yet but I am now really struggling to stay positive about it.
My favourite elves are High Elves - gone
Slann are incredibly fun to play - gone
Numerous other races I like have gone and been replaced by stuff that isn't (on paper) any better to play as.
Oh but there's Old World Alliance - wash your mouth out.
I love building teams and seeing them develop over time - you've got 15 games then they are dust.
From my personal perspective and the things I enjoy, this all looks absolutely terrible.


Looking very likely that there will be a day one PDF with the unreleased teams on, i've heard this from a few reliable sources now.

This means we will have high elf etc.. all updated.

Slann will be gone though.

As for 15 games then dust, that isn't correct.

That will be season 1 which is a building season. Season 2 and on will be used to get your team ready for a major. You should be able to get your team to 1800 TV with 490k saved up going into a major, and if you get far in the tournament you wont re-draft until you are out. So you can still get to a pretty high tv. Though your team likely wont be as pimped as you are used to. amd I am also not sure being a big tv leader is actually a good idea in this rule set either.

_________________
Image
Sp00keh



Joined: Dec 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Aug 12, 2020 - 11:55 Reply with quote Back to top

@Malmir again, not that I want to provoke you, but it's a relevant point:

Imagine new player in current rules looking at your (frankly disgusting but also amazing) Saurus with
+AG, +MA, Block, Break Tackle, +ST, +AG
https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=757057

And they ask, "Oh wow how did he get that"
"Well, he's played thousands of games, so the rolls will come out like that sometimes, and he is one of the best coaches"
"So if I enter a tournament, or play at high TV I might face stuff like that?"
"Yes"
"And then lose?"
"Oh yes"


GW seems to have been pretty ruthless about stomping out long term player building, it almost seems like they're deliberately shutting the door on players like that.
More now than Aging, or Wants To Retire, the increasing TV cost of old players is a harsh limit, the rebuy cap is a hard limit on team sizes, etc

All of this is just to lower the barrier for entry on new teams, which is a good* thing


It decreases the variance in team size, in player stat freaks etc
Like I said previously, if you're at the apex of team building, you're losing the most by being normalised in this way, unfortunately
Arthas85



Joined: Apr 27, 2006

Post   Posted: Aug 12, 2020 - 12:54 Reply with quote Back to top

The way they did the rules, it was probably better just to abolish stat increases because the effect will be clearly this.
On one side it is nice that we are not gonna see st5 wardancers, st6 blodging sauri, st6 ag6 vamps, all of these which are sooooooo common in basically every major and keep at distance whoever cannot compete with such scary builds with another even scarier of their own.

Of course I understand the pain of people that have constructed monster teams
full of stat freaks during years of playing.
I think that maybe solutions different that one chosen by GW could have been brought to mitigate the effect of luck on stat advancements and the build of monster teams.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 12, 2020 - 12:58 Reply with quote Back to top

Super high TV games can be very unbalanced so there should be something to limit super high TV teams (at least in divisions for one-off games, not talking about Majors): ageing, hard cap, less skill slots per players (5 for example), more SPPs to get skills etc., but redrafting and be pushed back to 1350 sounds not very good to me, GW could have found a better system.
Yes, you can get to 1800 TV, then enter a Major/tournament if you want your team to grow some more, but the fact you will be 100% pushed back looks to me like an impending doom ruining that ride.
Maybe a season redraft a bit higher could be better, if not for other else, to allow a wider range of races to be played. Hard to say without knowing all the rosters and the rules, though.
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic