99 coaches online • Server time: 19:16
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post What will we do with...goto Post SteelBowl Online 202...goto Post Bb2020 Will you reti...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Uber



Joined: Mar 22, 2004

Post   Posted: Nov 11, 2020 - 17:28 Reply with quote Back to top

@DrDeath: I proposed something similar, but I'm also predicting matching will remain mostly TV driven. There's no need for divisions per say under this scenario, as all teams of the same value should look more or less the same, regardless of what cap they've used to redraft.

We really need Christer to chime in to say whether or not he intends to change the matchmaking formula to prioritze number of games played over TV.

_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict.
DrDeath



Joined: Mar 27, 2011

Post   Posted: Nov 11, 2020 - 17:38 Reply with quote Back to top

Yes that could work too Uber. I'm not so sure on weighting games by games played rather than TV though. Av7 agility sides often get hammered, and go through phases of playing with several loners and not much TV despite being old. Is it fair to set them against a massive, old bash team which developed more because it suffered less attrition? That will just make it worse for agility sides and cause team retirements. At best you would want to match using some combination of TV and games played (I know there is the argument of coaches minmaxing old teams to come in at lower tv with a few highly effective players - also a valid argument, and they are not mutually exclusive!). But not games played alone, or older agility sides would become unviable in my opinion.
CAB



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 11, 2020 - 18:30 Reply with quote Back to top

DrDeath wrote:
Yes that could work too Uber. I'm not so sure on weighting games by games played rather than TV though. Av7 agility sides often get hammered, and go through phases of playing with several loners and not much TV despite being old. Is it fair to set them against a massive, old bash team which developed more because it suffered less attrition? That will just make it worse for agility sides and cause team retirements. At best you would want to match using some combination of TV and games played (I know there is the argument of coaches minmaxing old teams to come in at lower tv with a few highly effective players - also a valid argument, and they are not mutually exclusive!). But not games played alone, or older agility sides would become unviable in my opinion.


This I think entirely depend on how often teams get redrafted (how many games per season) and what the draft CAP is.
Nelphine



Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Post   Posted: Nov 11, 2020 - 18:37 Reply with quote Back to top

Right, DrDeath, I believe the suggestion for games played is actually for number of games played this season. And given the redraft cap, even elven teams should always start the season as strong as anyone else. Yes they might get smashed up during the season, but presumably that's part of the risk of playing elves (that's how it is in leagues anyway) and this would just make playing elves have the same risk as in a league.
Uber



Joined: Mar 22, 2004

Post   Posted: Nov 11, 2020 - 19:45 Reply with quote Back to top

I think blackbox can remain as is for all intents and purposes. If you wanna catch a game every 15 minutes, TV matching remains the best option.

For number of games matching, we could have an entirely different system. One that may alleviate other pains on the site. In North American timezone for example, when you get online and go into blackbox/gamefinder, there might not be a lot of suitable matches, but you basically be there at the exact same time as someone else in your range or it won't work. A lot of box draws fail with 2-3 guys. Sometimes I would really want to play, but I don't wanna spend the whole evening refreshing the page and hoping someone will show up. I think a lot of people want to play but don't wanna deal with the frustration of failing to find a game. It's gamefinder's biggest flaw basically.

Maybe the number of game matching system could let people set a time range when they're available, let's say 6pm to 10pm in their timezone, and then draw matchups according to that. I'm thinking these draws could happen a few times per day, basically a few hours in advance. I could foresee such a system enabling more games to be played overall.

I'd like to hear the big advocates on number of games matching to shime in on this. How could these draw work? How many per day should we have? How big should the activation window be?

For me the potential of planning a game on the fly a few hours in advance would be huge. The new ruleset and philosophy with matching per games seem like a good opportunity to design something entirely new.

Looking for some input on these points.

_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict.
Nelphine



Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Post   Posted: Nov 11, 2020 - 19:49 Reply with quote Back to top

oh i would only use it as a suitability criteria, instead of tv. which means if only 4 people match, you still get scheduled, even if you're a 1 game team and they are a 14 game team. it's not a restriction, its just a 'if possible, try to pair up teams with similar numbers of games played in their current season.'
Endzone



Joined: Apr 01, 2008

Post   Posted: Nov 12, 2020 - 01:23 Reply with quote Back to top

One does not simply merge R and B.

R is a 'choose your opponent' division and B is a 'scheduler chooses your opponent division'. If you merge R and B to create division 'R+B', you still have to choose a scheduling method. Will you choose scheduling method R (in which case division R+B becomes a new version of R) or chose scheduling method B (in which case division R+B becomes a new version of B).

No, I would not merge divisions R and B unless I had no other choice.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Nov 12, 2020 - 02:07 Reply with quote Back to top

Endzone wrote:
One does not simply merge R and B.

R is a 'choose your opponent' division and B is a 'scheduler chooses your opponent division'. If you merge R and B to create division 'R+B', you still have to choose a scheduling method. Will you choose scheduling method R (in which case division R+B becomes a new version of R) or chose scheduling method B (in which case division R+B becomes a new version of B).

No, I would not merge divisions R and B unless I had no other choice.


Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up with current events

Game Over Man, GAME OVER!

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



Joined: Aug 15, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 12, 2020 - 08:58 Reply with quote Back to top

Yes, I appreciate that this is a massive thread, but we're now starting to get into discussions on topics that were discussed together pages and pages ago.

As koadah has linked above, its Christer's thinking that we will be having a C division.

When you look at the rules (from what I have seen), this will be a bit of a reset and there will be gnashing of teeth. Change doesnt always sit well with people.

I would love Christer to give a further update on the plans, but on the flipside, he's probably working on the new client to handle the new rules.

It is what it is... the C division will be an implementation of the BB2020 ruleset.

What is up for flexibility is the L division (which has its own thread) and for those interested in High TV play, that may* be the place to go.

* - totally unconfirmed on how League will run in Open Sandbox format let alone structured league functionality.
Traul



Joined: Jun 09, 2013

Post   Posted: Nov 14, 2020 - 05:57 Reply with quote Back to top

dabassman wrote:
Maybe this was mentioned already, I don't remember, but why don't we make 3 different leagues, with low (135k), mid (160k) and high(200k) caps?

In that case the lowest division would have to be 100k because that is where new teams start.
EthanSimmons



Joined: Sep 25, 2020

Post   Posted: Dec 15, 2020 - 16:59 Reply with quote Back to top

Thanks for the info
smeborg



Joined: Jan 04, 2019

Post   Posted: Dec 23, 2020 - 00:14 Reply with quote Back to top

Hi Christer -

I am late to the party and to this thread. I trust your instincts in these matters, but I would just like to add a note of caution regarding "quantum of damage". It seems to me that BB2020 puts a little blood back into Blood Bowl, reversing a long trend since 3rd Edition. For example:

- "Designer doubles" (free choice of a secondary skill) allows players to be more easily tailored to cause damage than before. Examples: Elf Blitzer types can take M-Blow to complement Tackle, Werewolves can take M-Blow to complement Claw, Chaos Dwarfs can take Claw to complement M-Blow, any team can more easily get a player with Dirty Player + Sneaky Git.

- The fouling game is enhanced, especially with the improved Sneaky Git, but also with Guard assists for Fouls (not to mention new or modified Stars, e.g. The Black Gobbo). Fouling will I expect become more common, and more of an art form (nice!).

While on the face of it, Deaths will be 25% less common, stat decreases are as likely as before, and Niggling Injuries become much more likely (while the effect of a Niggling Injury moves from in-game to post-game).

I suspect we will see at least equal blood as before, and quite possibly more. Nigglng Injuries will I suspect become quite common (will people commonly use Apothecaries for Niggling Injuries? - I suspect not). Rosters will I think quickly become more fragile, with an accumulation of NI and -AV. Roster management with such players will be an issue.

Just flagging these issues as food for thought regarding league formats. Otherwise all good. Well done!
smeborg



Joined: Jan 04, 2019

Post   Posted: Dec 23, 2020 - 06:20 Reply with quote Back to top

Off topic, but I am also keen to see how roster management changes in BB2020, especially:

- How many RRs coaches will run with now that more than 1 can be used in a turn (more, presumably)?

- What size will rosters be (I am guessing a bit larger, e.g. 15 or so players)?

If these guesses are correct, then in turn running a lean roster for inducements might be a reasonable strategy for some teams.
ClayInfinity



Joined: Aug 15, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 23, 2020 - 08:20 Reply with quote Back to top

smeborg wrote:
Off topic, but I am also keen to see how roster management changes in BB2020, especially:

- How many RRs coaches will run with now that more than 1 can be used in a turn (more, presumably)?

- What size will rosters be (I am guessing a bit larger, e.g. 15 or so players)?

If these guesses are correct, then in turn running a lean roster for inducements might be a reasonable strategy for some teams.


I know there's alot of threads on BB2020, but the RR question is discussed here: https://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=31713
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