| Poll |
| Do you think the "Minimum Coach-Limit" should be lowered. |
| Yes, i think 5 would do it. |
|
11% |
[ 24 ] |
| Yes, i think 4 would be best. |
|
25% |
[ 52 ] |
| Yes, something even lower than 4 is good. |
|
9% |
[ 19 ] |
| No, the current limit (6) should be kept. |
|
35% |
[ 73 ] |
| I have no clue or I don't play in Box. |
|
19% |
[ 40 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 208 |
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 13:29 |
 
|
| BiggieB wrote: | [
they are not hoarding cash to get rich, they are hoarding cash to give away handis, which aint nearly worth the ts they count as. So they do it to effectivly lower they ts, another cheesy exploit |
I know, was just trying to be funny and failed  |
|
|
BiggieB
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 13:45 |
|
| odi wrote: | | BiggieB wrote: | [
they are not hoarding cash to get rich, they are hoarding cash to give away handis, which aint nearly worth the ts they count as. So they do it to effectivly lower they ts, another cheesy exploit |
I know, was just trying to be funny and failed |
 |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 15:20 |
|
| BiggieB wrote: | | they are not hoarding cash to get rich, they are hoarding cash to give away handis, which aint nearly worth the ts they count as. So they do it to effectivly lower they ts, another cheesy exploit |
Folks felt in this poll that handis were worth approx 5 TS, so on average you would gain nothing by stockpiling cash.
Lithuran suggested that the BWR ranking formula ignores handis, so this tactic would actually put you at a disadvantage. Example: the schedule matches player A's 175/150 team against player B's 140/140 team. If BWR ranking formula considers it 150 vs 140, player A won't gain as much BWR from a win and will lose more BWR for a loss. This is unconfirmed as yet but something to think about.
Personally I keep a max ~200k cash reserve to be able to replace fallen positionals quickly. More than that gets too random. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
BiggieB
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 15:24 |
|
| westerner wrote: | | BiggieB wrote: | | they are not hoarding cash to get rich, they are hoarding cash to give away handis, which aint nearly worth the ts they count as. So they do it to effectivly lower they ts, another cheesy exploit |
Folks felt in this poll that handis were worth approx 5 TS, so on average you would gain nothing by stockpiling cash.
Lithuran suggested that the BWR ranking formula ignores handis, so this tactic would actually put you at a disadvantage. Example: the schedule matches player A's 175/150 team against player B's 140/140 team. If BWR ranking formula considers it 150 vs 140, player A won't gain as much BWR from a win and will lose more BWR for a loss. This is unconfirmed as yet but something to think about.
Personally I keep a max ~200k cash reserve to be able to replace fallen positionals quickly. More than that gets too random. |
that makes the people who answered the poll feeling like that. But tell me then:
why would such a gamey person like trebourious horde cash like he does since u claim it doesnt give him any advantage? The conclusion is simple:
the handis are not worth 5ts. Some handis might, but moste are not, and thus it is an exploit. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 15:30 |
|
| odi wrote: | | Though, I havent run into that many 0RR+Leader or 500k in the bank teams, just a few of them. And even out of those some games have been really fun. For example I had a blast playing westerner's Dwarves twice in a row with my rats. I know he'll foul every rat that is down, even on T16 if he can, but he is a fun and chatty coach so it was quite fun. |
Hey odi, i enjoyed our games very much and you were great to play against. Just in case others may misinterpret your remarks about fouling, wanted to mention that fouls were 6-5 in my favor in our 1st game, and 2-2 in 2nd game. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 15:38 |
|
| BiggieB wrote: | that makes the people who answered the poll feeling like that. But tell me then:
why would such a gamey person like trebourious horde cash like he does since u claim it doesnt give him any advantage? The conclusion is simple:
the handis are not worth 5ts. Some handis might, but moste are not, and thus it is an exploit. |
I'll let Treborius answer for himself. But arguing that Treborius proves handis are worth less than 5TS, when 44 coaches voted they were worth 5TS (or more), seems a weak argument.
Reposting the handi valuation I posted in that thread. Feel free to say where I am off. Note: at the time I undervalued BRIBE THE REF because I didn't understand it properly.
| westerner wrote: |
>5 TS:
GREATEST 9TS (oppo loses 2nd best player, say 10TS discounted to 9TS in case best player doesn't play)
MORLEY'S REVENGE 8TS (avg 1 random player out on any drive, but the uncertainty frustrates opponent)
ILLEGAL DRUGS 8TS (+1ST applied in best possible place)
DOOM & GLOOM 6TS (avg 2 rerolls lost = 10TS, x half the game = 5TS, +20% for the first half and chances of extra CAS = 6TS)
IT WASN'T ME! 8TS (random player out)
~5 TS:
EXTRA TRAINING 5TS (avg value of reroll)
SMELLING SALTS 5TS (gut feeling, I hate when players idle in the KO box)
<5 TS:
PALMED COIN 3TS (receving first = 6TS, x50% you would have won the toss anyway)
BAD PRESS 3TS (say avg 13FF = 6FF lost = 3TS)
DUH, WHERE AM I? 4TS (oppo's best player gets Bonehead)
BRIBE THE REF 2TS (almost useless, prevents IGMEOY on 1st foul only)
KNUCKLEDUSTERS 3TS (Mighty Blow in right place)
VIRUS 4TS (This is obviously highly variable. The threat of Virus encourages sacking of nigglers. Guessing every 3rd B team has a niggler who will usually be a good player.)
IRON MAN 4TS (probably worth 2 basic skills)
BUZZNIG 3TS (can be double edged)
The average comes out to 5TS so the current valuation is not too far off. |
|
_________________
\x/es |
|
maznaz
Joined: Jan 26, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 15:43 |
|
The reason people who are metagaming TS down as low as possible are hoarding cash is because as BiggieB says, some handis aren't worth 5 ts. If you try tow ork out an average TS value for handis you can do, but if you tried tow ork out a TS value for every handi you would see some big differences (morleys vs bad press for example). Also, as these teams tend to sit at the lower end of the spectrum they will generally be making more use of the 15ts advantage. At the most stark example, a well skilled team could end up playing a completely unskilled new team. There are lots of factors that contribute to this: The scheduler basing ts differences off absolute values not percentages is one problem. Obviously 15ts difference to a 200ts team is easier to overcome than the same difference to a 100ts team. At the end of the day, hoarding tons of cash and metagaming with rerolls and leader IS causing unbalanced matchups, and while these offenders aren't as numerous as people would like to make out, they do exist and the combination of factors leads to odds heavily stacked in one team's favour before a die ahs even been rolled, which is a bad thing.
In my opinion, remove handis completely as the division only pairs based on TS. The reason Christer offers of being worried about people farming niggle teams doesn't hold water. Who cares if they do? Niggles are accurately accounted for in the TS formula and haording a lot of them is detrimental to the team. Just remove handis and fix leader TS and the low reroll rebate and let's see where we are then for a few weeks. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 15:47 |
|
| maznaz wrote: | | Just remove handis and fix leader TS and the low reroll rebate and let's see where we are then for a few weeks. |
I think your suggestion is worth a shot. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 15:50 |
|
| westerner wrote: |
I'll let Treborius answer for himself. But arguing that Treborius proves handis are worth less than 5TS, when 44 coaches voted they were worth 5TS (or more), seems a weak argument. |
Pretty simple explanation here: people are idiots 
I think handicap farming really comes into its own at lower TS and the coach deliberately builds the team to not worry about handicaps. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced."
Last edited by SillySod on %b %22, %2009 - %15:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
BiggieB
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 15:52 |
|
| westerner wrote: | | BiggieB wrote: | that makes the people who answered the poll feeling like that. But tell me then:
why would such a gamey person like trebourious horde cash like he does since u claim it doesnt give him any advantage? The conclusion is simple:
the handis are not worth 5ts. Some handis might, but moste are not, and thus it is an exploit. |
I'll let Treborius answer for himself. But arguing that Treborius proves handis are worth less than 5TS, when 44 coaches voted they were worth 5TS (or more), seems a weak argument.
|
u are correct in one thing. The conclusion should have been: that he thinks that they are worth less then 5ts  . So in that you are correct. I dont really know if they are worth they salt. But it does effectivly lower a teams ts. That you cannot argue.
The thing is that you must consider the fact that lower ts teams are usually weaker in playing up in ts then higher ts teams. (There are some exceptions here a ts 100 fling team can be incredbly strong). So the lower your ts it is the more it has the potential to be an exploit.
But on the treborious thing I must agree. That argument was supremely weak |
Last edited by BiggieB on %b %22, %2009 - %16:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 15:54 |
|
The value of a handicap isn't fixed - to a large extent, it depends on team size.
Will my TS 125 team slap a TS100 team that gets 5 handicaps? Pretty likely.
Will my TS 275 team beat up a TS 250 team that gets 5 handicaps? I think the edge is on the other team, in this case. |
_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”
—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 12:30 |
|
i don't really like putting a lot of people into the same bucket, but there've just been so many posts pointing at my teams and more or less saying 'blame yourself for low-B-activity', that i'm just getting tired of replying to every single one of 'em - so i'm just kinda choosing a few of those posts...
| flyor wrote: | i don't sign, it's clear that one-team-only players and 0 RR abusers have driven -at first enthusiastic- blackbox players away from a good system to get quick matches. blame yourself on that one.
greetings from nelson: HA! HA! |
there are prominent threads about 0 RR with the one side whining 'cause they don't like it and the other telling 'em to live with it - please go and post in those - it's just not related to this one (i'll be happy to reply there - i have done so often enough, though).
| BiggieB wrote: | | to me it sounds like the kid who broke his own toys wants others to fix it for him. The 6 coach minimum req is very good since it ensures much more possible matchups instead of 4 (a possible team min req would not be as effective since a coach can have more teams then one thus thinning the releveant density). |
well, as far as the kid and the toy is concerned: i don't consider B my toy, but yes i'd like to get the "Minimum Coach-Limit" fixed...
...i don't think i "broke" it (actually i think all the whining about 0 RR - teams, bashers, etc. hurts the division more than people actually facing those teams )
...the 2nd part with "thinning the relevant density" i simply don't get - unless you wanna say: 6 coaches gives more possible match-ups than 4 coaches on avg., but that's obvious, i guess
| BiggieB wrote: | | odi wrote: | | I think the actual problem is that we've driven a lot of possible coaches away from B. The problem isnt the minimum coach limit, but the number of coaches playing these days |
head on! So the question should be instead:
how can we get more coaches to play in B? (Note I am not playing in B but for discussion sake) |
i agree, that's another (more important / fundamental) question - and it's being asked here, so please keep the discussion about that topic in that place
i do agree, that it's related, but fixing B, such that more people start playing there, again, probably isn't going to happen that quickly - hence this petition to make B more playable as long as overall interest is staying as low as it is.
| shadow46x2 wrote: | maybe you should worry about issues like the 0 reroll exploit being fixed, which will in turn, encourage a little bit more traffic in the division.....
you can start by dealing with this team first...
because i know all kinds of coaches that would love to play against that team with their 3 game 119TS team
--j |
as i said, there're other threads specifically dealing with the 0 RR topic and if you remember: we've
discussed this topic there, already, and it's not many people who consider playing 0 RR an exploit.
As far as Leader is concerned - I agree: fix this - this is clearly an exploit.
But again, this has been extensively discussed before (i.e. in the links i provided), so again:
Please stick to the existing threads for those topics |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 12:38 |
|
Treborius, the thing you fail to understand (or acknowledge) is that all those off-topic replies ARE on topic.
You have a lot of teams in other divisions, none of them with 0 rrs... so it's safe to assume you don't consider the 0 rrs thing the optimal approach to a bb game. You (among others, I'm using the general "you" here) a're metagaming the system. THAT drives people away. THAT lowers the chances of games in a random pairings matchup system. So all the replies addressing the issue are *not* off topic.
It's the "let's lower the minimum coaches number" issue that should come AFTER the right measures to assure some sort of appeal to DivB have been taken... addressing these problems simultaneously (and accusing all those who point out potential roots of the problems of trying to derail this thread) is a logically flawed approach. |
_________________
 |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 12:52 |
|
| BiggieB wrote: | | westerner wrote: | | BiggieB wrote: | that makes the people who answered the poll feeling like that. But tell me then:
why would such a gamey person like trebourious horde cash like he does since u claim it doesnt give him any advantage? The conclusion is simple:
the handis are not worth 5ts. Some handis might, but moste are not, and thus it is an exploit. |
I'll let Treborius answer for himself. But arguing that Treborius proves handis are worth less than 5TS, when 44 coaches voted they were worth 5TS (or more), seems a weak argument.
|
u are correct in one thing. The conclusion should have been: that he thinks that they are worth less then 5ts . So in that you are correct. I dont really know if they are worth they salt. But it does effectivly lower a teams ts. That you cannot argue.
The thing is that you must consider the fact that lower ts teams are usually weaker in playing up in ts then higher ts teams. (There are some exceptions here a ts 100 fling team can be incredbly strong). So the lower your ts it is the more it has the potential to be an exploit.
But on the treborious thing I must agree. That argument was supremely weak |
well it's really moving how much energy you're devoting to guessing what's driving my team-management - decisions
...so i'll help out and try to explain as well as i can, here, (even if this is so off-topic)...
...as you can see i've only had 1 death so far and was thus earning much more money than i was spending over the last 19 games...
...didn't like to throw it away and didn't like spending it for wizzies (don't like wizzies) and neither for star-players, since it's my Orc-learning - team (i've only ever played 3 Orc-matches before this team) and star-players tend to change a team so much, that it's hardly about playing the race, but more about playing with the star-player.
...when i realized that i was going to give away many HCs i started to focus on dealing with that issue - bought a full roster of players (in case of Morley's or Greatest) and later realized it didn't need that many players (hence the 2 retired players w/o injuries).
...really, now, it's just my team to learn playing with Orcs and evaluating 0 RR and HCs
...whether or not 5TS is too much or to little for evaluating HCs, i'm quite undecided, but i'm having fun finding it out
...actually, i think, i would probably be playing with 2 players less if it wasn't for the HCs that i'm giving away every game...
...also it has become an aim to stack up 1M gold, just to find out how hard that is - never tried this before and 'remember playing a (Gobbo? or Ogre?) team in R, which tried to stack lots of gold for a major - 'just interested how hard it gets once you've reached TR=250 or TR=300 to further make profit.
...reason for most of these decisions: Curiosity |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 13:03 |
|
Well, Treborius, I am not really debating your good faith.
Well, I am, but I can get over it.
I'll try to stay neutral in my following reasoning:
The thing is that your approach to the division you like the most seems to hurt the participation to the division you like the most. Which will end in hurting your gaming experience in that division as well.
I agree with Odi that there shouldn't be "rules" to get rid of powergamers, because freedom is a very important art of the Fumbbl experience... but I am always amazed at how those who contribute to the problems claim the right for freedom WHILE at the same time asking for artificial fixes for the problems they themselves created.
Freedom comes at a cost, which is called responsability.
It reminds me of those R coaches who stacked claw/rsc players all over their chaos teams, then whined that they couldn't get a game... and asked for Ranked rules to prevent sissy elfballers from playing each others too much.
If you're part of the problem, you do not really have the right to propose solutions, do you? |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
Vamps win another ma...
Search
