Rawlf
Joined: Jul 15, 2007
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 10:20 |
|
TV measures the amount of roster improvement potential a team has actualised. The rules use it to determine free inducement money and the costs of roster items when redrafting. That is all, and it is fine.
But in FUMBBLs Competitive division, TV is also used for matchmaking and considered the main indicator for team strength. And that is a very big problem.
A) TV matchmaking contradicts the rulebook.
The rulebook knows only one way of matchmaking in a progression environment: the fixed schedule of a league. Obviously, this cannot be had in the Competitive division. But just like the planned redrafting system is trying to mimic seasons (which we cannot have in C either) as good as possible, we should try to find a matchmaking mode that comes as close to the rulebooks intention as possible, too.
A league schedule is completely independent of TV. However you manage your teams TV in a league, your opponents will always be the same. Using TV as part of the matchmaking process is diametrically opposed to the rulebook. In my opinion, the best number to use for match pairings that I have heard of on the forums yet is 'games this season'. It is the closest to the spirit of the rules as far as I can see.
B) TV matchmaking is turning the skill system upside down
The rules' skill system is of course designed for the league situation it assumes. The incentives to select skills are totally different in a league compared to a perpetual environment. In C, every change in TV will change who your next opponent will be. This will be a coaches biggest concern when making skill choices. In an extreme case, a tier 1 team would not choose any skills at all, as they would only weaken themselves in TV comparison. In a league, changing your TV through skills will not change your next opponent at all, only the amount of free inducement money retained by whichever side. In a league you try to squeeze out the last bit of performance for the rest of the season, while in C you have no such goal and can build the team just for the next game or plan to create the perfect team in a far distant future - totally up to the individual.
In C, it makes sense to cycle players fishing for good random rolls. In a league, you would always get more out of using that money to acquire extra inducements. Cycling players in order to deplete your next opponents treasury by 10k seems ridiculous.
In a league, random rolls are a fun way to get that last ditch effort going, while in C they lead directly to minmaxing cookie cutting.
I will say, the TV matchmaking in C perverts the skill system so badly it produces the opposite outcomes as were intended.
C) TV matchmaking kills inducements
Looking at how much love and book space was put into the inducement system, I assume they are intended to be a regular part of the game. All the stars, bribes, refs, prayers and whatnot are integral parts of the game and its balance design. Some teams are borderline unplayable without inducements (stunties for example). Others are designed to play with them too, like fragile elf teams who will have a lower TV than av10+ teams towards the end of a season. They are supposed to make use of the wizard or stars or something. On equal TV games, all this is lost. Another instance where TV matchmaking creates a huge and uncalled for deviation from the game as per the rulebook.
D) TV is not Team Strength
On FUMBBL, TV is often used as an indicator of team strength. Equal TV games are often considered 'fair'. It could hardly be further off the mark.
TV does not even include treasury, which you can use to buy extra inducements!
TV is meant to be 'unfair' (tier 1 teams are supposed to better than tier 3 teams at same TV).
TV puts different prizes on same things (block can be 10, 20 or 40k).
TV puts same prizes to things of different power (20k for block or pass block).
TV ignores how much influence the coach had in team building (TV1100 after 1 game or after 300 games).
The list goes on and on.
TL;DR
Let's get rid of TV beyond what the rules need it for. Let's get our tilted minds back in line with the intent of the rules. |
|
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 10:34 |
|
It's not a horrible idea, particularly if "Seasons" rule implementation keeps TV values within a reasonable range. You could also potentially do match making by how far a team is into a "Season" as a possibility? That would tend to align more closely with how Leagues are typically run. |
_________________ I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
Java
Joined: Jan 27, 2018
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 10:48 |
|
Entirely agreed. I've read a few times proposals to make the new GF/scheduler have brackets and formulas that rely on number of matches and number of seasons played. |
_________________ Vlad Von Carstein's door-to-door evangelist |
|
MerryZ
Joined: Nov 28, 2005
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 10:51 |
|
I do +1 this.
Well written and same thoughts what Ive had since first looked at redraftin and new teambuilding |
_________________ Kaptain Awasoam, Dicer of All Men and Women and Children and Puppies. |
|
ClayInfinity
Joined: Aug 15, 2003
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 10:58 |
|
I said this during the early posts from Christer re BB2020 implementation. Matching making should be on "games this season"... If a TV1000k team playing its first game of its first season gets matched against a Tv1350k team playing its first game of its 5th season, so be it. Thats what inducements are for.
Majors should be for teams with 15 or 14 wins in a season...
Inducements are in some instances very good at equating the match balance and for some teams (Snotlings and Ogres in particular) are desperately needed.
Great post Rawlf |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 10:58 |
|
I agree as well. The problem is: how to fix it? We had Team Strenght once, which was a different value than Team Rating, but it got scrapped. |
_________________
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 11:01 |
|
I think TV should still be a consideration but far from the primary consideration (I'm thinking about it as a secondary or tertiary layer of match-making simply to decide between teams when there's lots of potential matches in a scheduler situation).
I would be looking at:
Seasons played (season 1 teams should be assumed to be at a disadvantage vs s2+, and this sort of control is necessary to avoid endless "game 1 rebuy" by people who could simply induce spam you with flings with Morg, chef etc and then declare season end and do it again. Ad infinitum.)
Games played within that season (simply matching game 1 vs game 1 etc, would be seen as ideal, but is likely unworkable due to pooling, a more fluid selection like games 1-5, games 5-10 etc would be preferable).
Due to the above looser pooling of games, then yes, TV would still play a factor in matching teams, but I would weight it behind everything else and only use it when multiple teams were very close in all other factors.
It would also be a rather protective last measure for coaches who were forced into multiple mid-season rebuys due to having beat up teams, and may end up with "season" 4+ teams when they've actually played less than a full season of games. |
_________________
|
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 11:05 |
|
Given that the rules are written to take into account the difference in TV through inducements, my vote would be for completely random match making with the black box scheduler. |
|
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 11:17 |
|
ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | I think TV should still be a consideration but far from the primary consideration (I'm thinking about it as a secondary or tertiary layer of match-making simply to decide between teams when there's lots of potential matches in a scheduler situation).
I would be looking at:
Seasons played (season 1 teams should be assumed to be at a disadvantage vs s2+, and this sort of control is necessary to avoid endless "game 1 rebuy" by people who could simply induce spam you with flings with Morg, chef etc and then declare season end and do it again. Ad infinitum.)
Games played within that season (simply matching game 1 vs game 1 etc, would be seen as ideal, but is likely unworkable due to pooling, a more fluid selection like games 1-5, games 5-10 etc would be preferable).
Due to the above looser pooling of games, then yes, TV would still play a factor in matching teams, but I would weight it behind everything else and only use it when multiple teams were very close in all other factors.
It would also be a rather protective last measure for coaches who were forced into multiple mid-season rebuys due to having beat up teams, and may end up with "season" 4+ teams when they've actually played less than a full season of games. |
I would agree with this. However, there should always be a draw whenever 4 or more coaches have activated even if these other factors seem bent. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 11:32 |
|
Kondor wrote: | Given that the rules are written to take into account the difference in TV through inducements, my vote would be for completely random match making with the black box scheduler. |
The black box scheduler works primarily on the TV tough, and one of OP's points is exactly that it is a terrible way of doing matchmaking in bb2020. |
_________________
|
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 11:38 |
|
JanMattys wrote: | Kondor wrote: | Given that the rules are written to take into account the difference in TV through inducements, my vote would be for completely random match making with the black box scheduler. |
The black box scheduler works primarily on the TV tough, and one of OP's points is exactly that it is a terrible way of doing matchmaking in bb2020. |
Sure, but part of the site's BB 2020 transition is to rework the black box scheduler. It seems to me that a random scheduler would be amongst the easiest to implement and may be the best way to go. |
|
|
mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 12:07 |
|
+1 to all of Rawlf's points.
It would make more sense to match teams based on amount of games, I only wonder how realistic it will be to have enough coaches online at the same time. But it'd be optimal. |
_________________
|
|
almic85
Joined: May 25, 2009
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 12:15 |
|
Who remembers the good old days of Ranked before the Gamefinder became a thing.
When you just had to go into chat and type LFG and then figure out if you were the picker or the pickee. |
_________________ SWL the place to be.
If you're interested join the Fringe |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 12:18 |
|
|
argos_72
Joined: Mar 02, 2007
|
  Posted:
Sep 29, 2021 - 12:22 |
|
Rawlf wrote: |
[...]
Using TV as part of the matchmaking process is diametrically opposed to the rulebook. In my opinion, the best number to use for match pairings that I have heard of on the forums yet is 'games this season'. It is the closest to the spirit of the rules as far as I can see.
|
I'd also like to see the number of games in the season used more heavily in the match making algorithm. in BB2016 there was no redraft so the match making mechanism (I'm talking mainly about Box) considers the association between teams according to TV and then discriminated if a certain number of games had been played. But beyond 30 matches played this discriminator no longer exists. Since redraft is now part of the game, perhaps this factor should also be included in the match making algorithm. I think is a good proposal.
In the Competitive league (or Ranked), which works with the GF, if you want to introduce this rule, it would be enough to make it automatically excluded for a certain coach to be able to "pick" a team with a similar TV but which has played many more (or less) games than yoru team. This is something I think is technically possible and maybe also fair. |
|
|
|
| |