69 coaches online • Server time: 11:54
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post New meta ? The cheap...goto Post Fouling is broken 20...goto Post XXXL LIVE
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Sep 20, 2019 - 15:24
Reply with quote Back to top

With 10 days remaining of season 2, it's time to look forward to the next season. I am looking for input from you guys as to what changes, if any, you'd want to see take effect for season 3.

With the little time I've spent looking at participation rate, going from 200 games in season 1 to 150 games in season 2 seems to have been positively received. Overall participation rate has gone up, which is a good thing. The number of people who actually completed the trophy is largely unchanged though, meaning that there are a few coaches who are very active.

What I am considering is a change that could allow for both more and less games:

4 teams, 25 games per team (100 games total)
Once you completed 100 games for a squad, you have the option to create a new squad. However, to maintain the spirit of diversity, you can't pick a race you've used before (in the same season).

With 4 teams instead of 5 and the slightly reduced number of games per team, most of the other parameters would need to change as well. Without spending any significant time on looking at it closely, this could be a starting point:

- Number of Teams: 4 (down from 5)
- Total Team Cost: 7 (down from 9)
- Points per unused allocation: 3.5 (up from 2.5)
- Max number of cost 3 teams: 2 (no change)
- Games per team: 25 (down from 30)
- Bonus points: 0.6 per 5 games (changed from 1 per 10 games; effectively 3 points to complete all games either way)
- Race lead bonus: 1.5 (no change)

I haven't looked at race participation yet and therefore won't comment on any potential race cost changes. I'm very much interested in what you all have to say in this regard though, so feel free to post!

Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Sep 20, 2019 - 15:37 Reply with quote Back to top

Just from gut feeling i think
- Khemri could a full tier lower
- Slann could be a new tier a little bit higher, as they are better than vamps and underworlds, but worse than norse and pro elves. Hell, they might be a full tier higher.
- Chaos and nurgle could be a little lower tier, not the highest. Half a tier or full tier lower.
- Amazons and necro did a little worse than i thought they would, so i have some question mark about their tiers, but not confident to downgrade them without serious statistical background.

Those are my considerations, but i recommend doing a statistical summary of win % per race, and go with that.


Joined: Sep 04, 2017

Post   Posted: Sep 20, 2019 - 16:18 Reply with quote Back to top

I like the idea of less games per team and an option to redraft a completely new set of teams as long as they are completelly different teams from previous squad.

As per the points per team:
Lowering the tier of the chaos and nurgle teams might make sense in the trophy run, but the idea of the trophy was to bring diversity to the box, and those are way too common as to bring down.
Amazons are way too good at a low number of games as to be tier two, same with norse.
Slann & Necro could be brought up and down respectively, but they both have the potential to do really well, or to just implode, spetially slann, they dont do well on unexperienced hands, they even explode in experienced hands....

Anyhow, Im excited. And +1 to less games, less teams and option to redraft

Joined: Sep 24, 2007

Post   Posted: Sep 20, 2019 - 16:20 Reply with quote Back to top

I like all the suggested changes by Christer. I think the values for each race are already pretty spot on. Possibly lower by half a point Renegades, Humans, Lizards, Khemri.

Joined: Sep 04, 2017

Post   Posted: Sep 20, 2019 - 16:21 Reply with quote Back to top

cant bring down lizards, they are one of the best teams in the game

Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Post   Posted: Sep 20, 2019 - 16:23 Reply with quote Back to top

Do you have to make new teams to join? Or can you pick teams you already have as part of your squad? (I have no interest in making new teams for races I already have a team for)

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Sep 20, 2019 - 16:35
Reply with quote Back to top

Some pretty charts for you to consider:

Joined: Oct 30, 2012

Post   Posted: Sep 20, 2019 - 16:36 Reply with quote Back to top

Thanks for all new ideas Smile

3.5 points for unused allocation sounds huge, means 13 free points on 100 if you start with the "suicide squad" !! should bring more stunties in the trophy, that's good !

2nd squad idea is great, could even be: all 4 different rosters and less point (2nd squad: 6 points, 3rd squad: 5 points maybe... for BB alcoholics as me :p)

can't wait Very Happy

Joined: Jul 14, 2014

Post   Posted: Sep 20, 2019 - 16:54 Reply with quote Back to top

Note that increasing the points per unused allocation, while reducing the number of games per team, is a huge buff to the lower tier races. In the old situation, you would need to score 7.5 more points (7 wins and a draw over 8 losses) to justify choosing a 3 point race over a 0 point race. In the new situation, that would be 10.5 points (10 wins and a draw over 11 losses). Simultaneously, you're giving the higher tier teams less games to make up that deficit.

Also, realize that if you're lowering the number of games per team, the bonus points for completing games will make up a larger portion of points.

Going down on the number of games required for a complete run, but allowing those who have completed their runs to start a second one is probably a good change. However, please make sure that the changes in score you make to accompany that change don't influence the balance too heavily.

If you wanted to keep the balance similar, while going down to 100 games, I would probably do the following:
- Number of Teams: 5 (unchanged)
- Number of Tiers: 6 (up from 4, varying in cost from 0 - 5 points)
- Total Team Cost: 15 (so still 3 * max cost + 2 * cost 0.)
- Points per unused allocation: 1 (so using a 0 cost rather then max cost gives 5 points, down from 7.5)
- Games per team: 20 (down from 30)
- Bonus points: 1 per 10 games (unchanged)
- Race lead bonus: 1 (down from 1.5)

Effectively, everything that gives points now gives 2/3 of the points it gave.

Joined: Jul 14, 2014

Post   Posted: Sep 20, 2019 - 17:14 Reply with quote Back to top

As for what teams require buffs/nerfs, I don't know the details, but I feel that balance should be a combination of strength and popularity.

The goal should be to balance in such a way that choosing any team a priori will give you roughly the same points, with a small penalty to popular teams, and a small bonus to unpopular teams. Whether a team is popular or unpopular should be measured while excluding last years trophy teams (If renegades are extremely unpopular in trophy, but extremely popular in box outside of trophy teams, the trophy is doing exactly what it needs to do)

Joined: Nov 18, 2017

Post   Posted: Sep 20, 2019 - 19:47 Reply with quote Back to top

Great ideas, going down to 100 games looks good overall and running twice with 4 new teams even better. Some thoughts :
- Still don't understand the need for the number of games bonus point. That makes the standing really harder to read, doesn't change the winner and is even less necessary and incentive with the number of games reduced to 100.

- Norse look a bit strong for their actual tier, especially with less games. Khemri could go down. Same obviously for renegades which are really weak, except nobody wants more of them.

Joined: Jun 17, 2011

Post   Posted: Sep 20, 2019 - 21:40 Reply with quote Back to top

All good ideas C. My only thought is that Norse were undercosted this season. They are already a problem at low TV.

Your second graph is interesting because it represents perceived value per allocation point, not just team strength. Superficially, teams at left might be candidates for increased cost, and teams at right for reduced cost. But personally I like them where they are (apart from Norse). Format change to 4 teams will skew this of course.

Still not sure I'll participate in S3, I vastly overestimated my ability to play the games. I'll probly register and then fail again. Smile

Joined: Oct 25, 2003

Post   Posted: Sep 20, 2019 - 22:17
Reply with quote Back to top

I don't agree with SableHeart that lowering the number of games per team while leaving the bonus for completing the games the same changes much, just moves the spread of points higher for a completer and gives them a small edge over those who do not complete. I've never seen the need for it and it does make comparisons tricky.

But the change giving a higher bonus to unused points over a shorter run will change things hugely as he said, making bang for buck even more vital in team point cost.

BBT season 2:
7.5 point difference from a 3 point team to a 0 point team.
25% of maximum points (30)

BBT season 3 proposal:
10.5 point difference from 3 point team to a 0 point team.
52.55 of maximum team points (20)

That is a MASSIVE swing in the meta.
Wood Elf 15/3/2
Goblin 5/2/13
earn you the same points!

So of all the proposed changes, i feel thats the one I'd look again at. Keeping it at 2.5 would still be a massive boost to lower tier races over the shorter course, but increasing it is insane.

As to which races go where, for what points, think it's pretty good as is. I prefer the aim of 'play the less played' than 'play the least successful'. I think Norse could pop back to 3 points maybe and Khemri/Slann swap (or be a 1.5 cost for either) but Im struggling to think what to drop down to replace them. Renegades/Nurgle/Chaos would all look good on paper and would struggle to point well over a short course, but do we really need a bloom in those races?

Points available 14, for 4 teams. unused points count instantly as trophy run points.

6 points:
Dwarf, Chaos Dwarf, Lizzardmen, Wood Elf, Amazon, Undead, Necromantic, Dark Elf, Orc, skaven

5 points:
Norse, High Elves, Chaos Renegades, Chaos, Nurgle

4 points:
Pro Elves, Humans

3 points:
Khemri, Slann

2 points:
Vampire, Underworld

1 point:

0 points:
Goblin, Ogre

Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intelligor ulli
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone

Joined: Mar 26, 2018

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 01:26 Reply with quote Back to top

Really like PC's input here and like his new purchase system. I'm actually going to try for a trophy run this year and not give up after tieing 4 games on my slann!.

Joined: Nov 16, 2003

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 02:07 Reply with quote Back to top

Playing 100 to complete is a good idea. That's more likely for semi casual players
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