43 coaches online • Server time: 00:54
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Wrestle Gutter Runne...goto Post snotling ball carrie...goto Post Missing encoding of ...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
smeborg



Joined: Jan 04, 2019

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 09:00 Reply with quote Back to top

I promised this to Christer not long ago, so here goes.

OBJECTIVES

- A mass/casual/unscheduled/instant/pick-up environment (as distinct from scheduled private/closed leagues).

- An environment in the spirit of the BB2020 rulebook.

- An environment that does not allow cherry-picking of opponents by coaches.

- An environment that does not exclusively reward aggressive TV management (allowing more expansive exploration of team development).

PROPOSAL

Match teams exclusively by matches played (no other criteria), as follows:

- 0 games played
- 1-2 games played
- 3-5 games played
- 6-9 games played
- 10-14 games played
- Re-draft as per the rulebook after 15 games
- 15-19 games played
- 20-24 games played
- 25-29 games played
- Re-draft as per the rulebook after 30 games
- etc.

Matching of teams could be done using a scheduler (e.g as per Blackbox), but I think this is unnecessary. Just match teams on the basis of "first cab off the rank".

OTHER

All these parameters can be tweaked, of course, in the light of experience.

There will be a point at which teams are considered equivalent in development (I don't know after how many games this will be). If there is a consensus to go for it after (say) 15 games (first and potentially subsequent re-drafts), go for it and see what happens!

My personal experience on FUMMBL in environments like Competitive and Ranked is that the "power gamers" (coaches who dominate both the rankings and discourse on the forums) nearly always refuse challenges from my teams except under the most favourable circumstances. Please do not allow them to decide the issue.

I love FUMBBL and admire the enormous amount of work that has been put in by Christer and many others. Please run with this suggestion - the worst that can happen is that it fails!
C0ddlefish



Joined: Sep 17, 2019

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 09:15 Reply with quote Back to top

My initial thought are I don't have any major concerns with this style of thing other than, as you hinted at, whether the bands are too tight. I'm not sure I'd want to be waiting for ages for a rookie team to match because I have to wait for another rookie team.

Similar if I search with multiple teams at once, which one is 'first cab off the rank'? Presumably fairly easy to make sure that doesn't skew toward always being the youngest or oldest team
Schwifty



Joined: Apr 29, 2021

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 09:31 Reply with quote Back to top

There is a big difference in how fast teams develop. Compare nurgle to dark elves for example. I don't see number of games played as a valid match up

I'd like to see a system that pairs you to another team within a range of TV you selected yourself. This way stunties might be playable because you really want that chef / bribes most of the time. This way you can increase chances to play a game by making the range bigger. I'd also like to see a way to rank your own drafting teams to wich you prefer to play most. And have the pairing system respect that so you are at best chance to find a game for the team you want to play with at that moment. Or something else if there is no match up for that team

The current gamefinder system is really not motivating me to play more games.
Kinks



Joined: Feb 28, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 10:34 Reply with quote Back to top

Not bad.
Schwifty wrote:
There is a big difference in how fast teams develop. Compare nurgle to dark elves for example. I don't see number of games played as a valid match up

I think you are highlighting an issue with BB2020, not the suggested scheduler. If we adjust the scheduler to compensate for shortcomings in the official rules we might as well just amend the rules.

The objective is to create an environment as close to possible as the official rules, this appears to achieve that.

_________________
Better lucky than good
Kinks



Joined: Feb 28, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 10:56 Reply with quote Back to top

smeborg wrote:
There will be a point at which teams are considered equivalent in development (I don't know after how many games this will be). If there is a consensus to go for it after (say) 15 games (first and potentially subsequent re-drafts), go for it and see what happens!

Presumably after 3 or 4 seasons the number of games/seasons want mater so much, but the first 5 games after each draft a likely to make some teams weaker than games towards the end of a drafting season.

_________________
Better lucky than good
mekutata



Joined: May 03, 2015

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 11:54 Reply with quote Back to top

For now it looks as if Christer will use TV for handling the new box. Don't worry though, he's rather a power painter than "power gamer".

I try to play in a similar way as you propose in the current C.
Challenging/accepting teams with the same amount of games (+/- X in desperate times).
Sadly I can sometimes not challenge some teams that would fulfill the parameter of same amount of games due TV difference. (Could be bye passed via gamenames but so far not worth the effort).

There have been some attempts on our discord to run Instant Smacks based on played games.

I could imagine a Meta Group for C could maybe help to play a system based on games.

C teams can register and will be integrated in a sheet which updates via api how many games/seasons are played by them.
Interested coaches can use that list to view teams listed by #games and #seasons and use this to arrange games against other coaches looking for a similar experience.

We could even try to combine that with the nature of Smacks where coaches agree on arranging to play games at a certain time and then draw who plays whom to bypass any "picking".

_________________
Image
Sp00keh



Joined: Dec 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 11:56 Reply with quote Back to top

smeborg wrote:
Proposal

Agree with all this, I've suggested the same thing myself previously

Schwifty wrote:
Nurgle

It's a good point that Nurgle, as well as Chaos and a few others will suffer. They skill up slowly, lack basic starting skills, and it's also an expensive roster
However, that is exactly what would happen in a big tabletop league, so it seems to be as intended.

Schwifty wrote:
stunty teams

Disagree about needing a TV range filter for stunty teams.
You can estimate what TV other teams are likely to be at your current point in the season, and then adjust your TV accordingly to aim for whatever inducements you want
Again, that'd be what would happen in a big tabletop league
Sp00keh



Joined: Dec 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 12:02 Reply with quote Back to top

mekutata wrote:
We could even try to combine that with the nature of Smacks where coaches agree on arranging to play games at a certain time and then draw who plays whom to bypass any "picking".


That'd be collusion though
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 12:10 Reply with quote Back to top

For Stunties it had been already suggested a virtual TV for pairing purpose, so a Goblin TV 1200 would be considered TV 1300 by the Box scheduler and paired with a TV 1300 team.
That would allow Stunty teams to have bribes, Chef and other needed inducements.
That said, Season Re-Draft is not suited to a perpetual environment.
For a perpetual environment it would be better a hard TV cap where a greater range of races is reasonably playable.
mekutata



Joined: May 03, 2015

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 12:18 Reply with quote Back to top

Sp00keh wrote:
mekutata wrote:
We could even try to combine that with the nature of Smacks where coaches agree on arranging to play games at a certain time and then draw who plays whom to bypass any "picking".


That'd be collusion though


How would that be collusion? Nothing secretive or fraudulent here.
You can arrange and accept games in C under certain criteria already. FUMBBL's official discord has a #lfg channel only for the purpose to find matches.

I don't think for instance using BowlBot to draw games between a couple of interested coaches would break any rule. Obviously there is the limit of allowed games between two coached under a certain amount of games. But this would and could not be changed anyway.

_________________
Image
maznaz



Joined: Jan 26, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 12:18 Reply with quote Back to top

Since the official rules doesn't seem to be freely available online anymore, can someone summarise the part you're trying to emulate here? How does the games played matching work in the rules?
mekutata



Joined: May 03, 2015

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 12:36 Reply with quote Back to top

maznaz wrote:
Since the official rules doesn't seem to be freely available online anymore, can someone summarise the part you're trying to emulate here? How does the games played matching work in the rules?


The official rules are not based on perpetual playing but focus on playing seasons in a league. The whole logic of the new skills, how players develop, costs of inducements and upcoming Re-Draft mechanism thus focuses on games played (at least I assume that's the most common situations in leagues).

Having a way to play/filter opponents based on a similar/same amount of games would allow to emulate this experience. You could have your season experience without being part of an actual league.

To me it would make sense to design the future box in this direction as we will get the Re-Draft integrated anyway. But right now the direction seems to stick with TV. Which is okay but will certainly mean specific metabox thinking (and be closer to what old box used to be, although with Re-Draft).

_________________
Image
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 12:50 Reply with quote Back to top

A perpetual league can't emulate a scheduled (based on matches played) league, especially a perpetual league with a small userbase. With a small population it's hard to find the teams with the same numbers of games (or close enough) and that could reduce the number of matches played. Instead, if the game-played-brackets are loose (in order to increase the pairings), then the idea of "playing vs same number of games team" is contradicted.
Trying to emulate a scheduled league in an online perpetual environment, where the focus is to play one-off games whenever you want rather than being matched by same number of games will not work well.
mekutata



Joined: May 03, 2015

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 13:27 Reply with quote Back to top

It will already emulate a league experience to some degree simply by using season Re-Draft.

It is certainly always easier to schedule more teams if you loosen parameters, be it TV or games. But in both cases it comes with certain flaws.
Best case scenario is always when the userbase grows.

My suggested Meta Group would allow to try out matching based on matches within context of the current environment. Worst case scenario it lacks interest and you schedule games as usual. Best case scenario you get good matches without having to pick in any positive or negative matter.

Personally I enjoyed having my game 15 "season final" against a team doing the same.

_________________
Image
maznaz



Joined: Jan 26, 2004

Post   Posted: Dec 05, 2021 - 15:54 Reply with quote Back to top

Seems like you're trying to solve a lot of problems in one go. I'd be very surprised if implementing these changes as-is wouldn't just make it impossible to find games. It's already hard, because of people's perceptions of what's a fair game (truth is very few games are fair and striving for them isn't realistic).

If you replace TV with games played in C matchmaking, you'll just have hilariously unbalanced matches. Trust me when I say that teams like my underworld are stronger the fewer matches they play and the more TV they have the less sure they are of winning. Ironically coaches are less likely to play against them, because people are bad at judging "fair".

Trying to crowbar a short league feeling into a perpetual league will never work. This site will always be an oddity in that way. Given the relatively small number of really active coaches providing a lot of games for the site, I think it's a bad idea to narrow the possible matches in order to try and meet your arbitrary definition of fair.
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