103 coaches online • Server time: 23:12
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Strong arm versus ex...goto Post SCUM Fundraiser - Fe...goto Post Help testing bb2020 ...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
DrDeath



Joined: Mar 27, 2011

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 15:37 Reply with quote Back to top

+1 to MrJoshua, yes everyone is entitled to an opinion. However I think it is fair to say those who have played hundreds of games on here over many years have an opinion which will carry more weight. I think what riled people with CAB is that he gazumped the thread with 17 posts in quick succession, despite not really playing here... Better to keep it to one or two posts with your opinion, so everyone can be heard?

To keep it short and sweet I will say this - the new rules appear to be designed for a small group of friends playing table top, as previous editions were. In this scenario they will never get to lots of games, and a threshold of 1350 TV makes sense between seasons - as it will let newcomers join in easily and be competitive. HOWEVER 1350 is totally inappropriate for a perpetual matching environment such as Ranked, Blackbox (other than the BBT) and the Majors here on FUMBBL. I think we need to accept that the new rules just have not been designed for that, and interpret the rules accordingly with our own house rule variation - by raising that threshold to somewhere between 1600 - 2000 TV. In fact that would be great, as it would provide a more level playing field - which surely is the whole underlying concept behind the new seasons rule? It would keep to the spirit of this. New or part-time players could easily build a team to that range, we would get to keep many of the old players and teams we have nurtured over many games (and seriously where is the fun otherwise in repeatedly losing lots of your star players?!), and as an added bonus it would prevent some of the ridiculously high TV sides that currently dominate in the Majors. That would be wonderful in my opinion and seems a common sense solution, but of course it's Christer's site and his call! I'm sure he will reason through it and come up with some kind of solution. I doubt he wants to see many old and famous teams - and coaches for that matter - disappear either? He has always called it well in the past which is why FUMBBL has been such a great site, for many years and through many previous changes. So let's have a little faith too, and we will see...
Mattius



Joined: Sep 03, 2006

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 16:04 Reply with quote Back to top

DrDeath wrote:
+1 to MrJoshua, yes everyone is entitled to an opinion. However I think it is fair to say those who have played hundreds of games on here over many years have an opinion which will carry more weight. I think what riled people with CAB is that he gazumped the thread with 17 posts in quick succession, despite not really playing here... Better to keep it to one or two posts with your opinion, so everyone can be heard?

To keep it short and sweet I will say this - the new rules appear to be designed for a small group of friends playing table top, as previous editions were. In this scenario they will never get to lots of games, and a threshold of 1350 TV makes sense between seasons - as it will let newcomers join in easily and be competitive. HOWEVER 1350 is totally inappropriate for a perpetual matching environment such as Ranked, Blackbox (other than the BBT) and the Majors here on FUMBBL. I think we need to accept that the new rules just have not been designed for that, and interpret the rules accordingly with our own house rule variation - by raising that threshold to somewhere between 1600 - 2000 TV. In fact that would be great, as it would provide a more level playing field - which surely is the whole underlying concept behind the new seasons rule? It would keep to the spirit of this. New or part-time players could easily build a team to that range, we would get to keep many of the old players and teams we have nurtured over many games (and seriously where is the fun otherwise in repeatedly losing lots of your star players?!), and as an added bonus it would prevent some of the ridiculously high TV sides that currently dominate in the Majors. That would be wonderful in my opinion and seems a common sense solution, but of course it's Christer's site and his call! I'm sure he will reason through it and come up with some kind of solution. I doubt he wants to see many old and famous teams - and coaches for that matter - disappear either? He has always called it well in the past which is why FUMBBL has been such a great site, for many years and through many previous changes. So let's have a little faith too, and we will see...


The TV cap proposed + number of games it applies to is a house rule. I think if the rules were strictly followed there wouldn't be seasons as box/ranked isn't a league with a defined season, off season and play offs. It's simply a collection of exhibition games. Regarding the cap, the wording is 'league commissioners may, at their discretion, place a cap of 1,300,000 gold pieces...'

Now clearly by being able to pick skills, have more money and less death, it looks like seasons is necessary to keep fumbbl sane.

So as I see it, the question isn't, should we follow the rules or make house rules. It's a question of which house rules are set.
Uber



Joined: Mar 22, 2004

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 16:52 Reply with quote Back to top

I think keeping FUMBBL sane is a bit overated. The new rules give you a lot more control over TV, so staying in sane range could be totally up to the users. Why cut the options for everyone instead of letting the users decide what they like?

_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict.
Muff2n



Joined: May 20, 2017

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 17:10 Reply with quote Back to top

I guess the problem comes from a sparsity of players. Whilst it would be great to let everyone play how they want, we do need a functional match making component. And fragmenting the players further by allowing some even bigger than before teams (choosing stats, fewer deaths, etc) the ranges of TV could be even higher. And there are already enough complaints about large TV gaps. So the benefit of 'enforcing a TV range' is that you will have more potential matches close to your TV.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 17:28 Reply with quote Back to top

Depending on how many quit or jump ship to the league division.

_________________
Image
[SL] Old World Rumbble - Brand new teams only - ALWAYS recruiting
Mattius



Joined: Sep 03, 2006

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 17:34 Reply with quote Back to top

Uber wrote:
I think keeping FUMBBL sane is a bit overated. The new rules give you a lot more control over TV, so staying in sane range could be totally up to the users. Why cut the options for everyone instead of letting the users decide what they like?


The main issue will be for tournaments. We will have many tv2800+ teams that are insanely optimised. All ball carriers will have +2 mv, blodge etc. It's not really the spirit of what the new rules are intended for. So while I'm very much against a small cap. I full heartedly agree that seasons in some form are needed. Nurgle/Chaos especially would be unstoppable.
Uber



Joined: Mar 22, 2004

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 17:40 Reply with quote Back to top

OK so just add a requirement to enter the majors you must have redrafted at the current suggested cap.

_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 17:43 Reply with quote Back to top

Uber wrote:
OK so just add a requirement to enter the majors you must have redrafted at the current suggested cap.


That is one of the ideas to use in [L]eague. But I still think that would leave some horrible teams still in.

_________________
Image
[SL] Old World Rumbble - Brand new teams only - ALWAYS recruiting
Malmir



Joined: May 20, 2008

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 17:59 Reply with quote Back to top

Apologies everyone for my use of profanity yesterday (though not the general message). I have edited it out of my post.
Uber



Joined: Mar 22, 2004

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 18:16 Reply with quote Back to top

I think there's more upside in allowing horrible teams to exists than to prevent their existence altogether. Never thought I'd end up on the pro-life side of the argument!

_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 18:37 Reply with quote Back to top

Uber wrote:
I think there's more upside in allowing horrible teams to exists than to prevent their existence altogether. Never thought I'd end up on the pro-life side of the argument!


I believe that that is very close to how the open [L]eague division will work.

i.e. No seasons. But if you want to put a TW limit on your tournament then that is up to you.

I may well bring back the Open [L]eague Cup in some form. Mr. Green

_________________
Image
[SL] Old World Rumbble - Brand new teams only - ALWAYS recruiting
Doofr



Joined: Nov 04, 2015

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 18:59 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
Depending on how many quit or jump ship to the league division.


Seeing lot of old hardcore coach's saying they will stop or just play in leagues .

I'm pretty sure the activity will drop on fumbbl once the period of discovery on the news rules is over .

If I imagine coaches like Cloggy beeing replaced by coach's like CAB , there will def be less games . The only way it would not happen , it's if for each " Cloggy" was replaced by 10 "CAB".

What will push people to play fumbbl instead of bb3, a part the fact its free ?

PS: I know that personaly the reasons who made me play on fumbbl , instead of BB2 , would be not true anymore with the new rules.

_________________
Image
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 19:24 Reply with quote Back to top

It is not the end of the world for everyone.

A lot of people may say they'll quit but won't. They'll get used to it. Many people recycle teams to stay at low TV anyway. It shouldn't affect them much. BB Trophy requires a restart.

_________________
Image
[SL] Old World Rumbble - Brand new teams only - ALWAYS recruiting
Doofr



Joined: Nov 04, 2015

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 19:36 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
It is not the end of the world for everyone.

A lot of people may say they'll quit but won't. They'll get used to it. Many people recycle teams to stay at low TV anyway. It shouldn't affect them much. BB Trophy requires a restart.


Sure, but im pretty sure , that the activity overall will drop a bit on fumbbl.

We will see.

Like i said , i dont see why new people should come play on fumbbl instead of BB3.

And personly im sure i will play only leagues games with the old skillset selection.

Like Cloggy , the anouncement of the news rules killed my motivation to play box games.

Im already only playing leagues games and some stunty rarely.

_________________
Image
Wolvassa



Joined: Dec 23, 2019

Post   Posted: Nov 10, 2020 - 20:00 Reply with quote Back to top

On the subject of the redraft cap and season length, I feel like they are completely within Christer's control, there's no need to stick to any particular number. I can see an argument for erring on the side of a higher cap, with the option to tweak it down if it leads to "bad" behaviour and weirdness from the top teams - but to be honest I can't see there being outliers much more egregious than K''Chain Che'Malle. The redraft cap seems to be the most significant factor in terms of allowing individual players to build up a history and become stars, the season length probably adds up to more of a control on the whole team over time.


Looking at skill choice and how 'bad' random skills are, is that partly due to thinking about this in terms of TV based matchmaking?

How many spp I get largely relates to how well I do in a game. Having more skills will lead to me doing better, so if my opponent and I have played a match and both got ~10 spp, the choice to spend them on suboptimal random skills or to bank them for better skills in the future becomes part of the strategy of team building.

Theoretically, I go into the second match with a skill advantage, and use that to gain more spp in that match than my opponent, gaining more skills and so on, kind of a speculate to accumulate sort of situation. (The difference between a doran's start or a cull start if you will forgive a LoL analogy.) I kind of feel like the season rules are designed to set the boundaries for the power curve of teams, and the skill rules are designed to give players options for how their teams grow in that power curve, with the assumption of teams playing others that have played the same number of matches. TV based matchmaking may give better games each time, but it sort of breaks that relationship, and changes the way team growth works in a way that the designers didn't really care about.

It will also be interesting to see just how big the difference is between skills - is giving the fifth player on your team block actually twice as good as giving them an average skill from the list? The answer may be yes with things like block and dodge, and it probably depends on the team and the other skills you have, but I suspect it isn't as cut and dry as people on here make out. Even in the current rules, there is a point where the best first skill on a lineman is Kick.
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