Dalfort
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
|
 Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 08:47 |
 
|
I was a favourable opponent lol rarely a threat, shoddy positioned play providing the manured field for great SPP farming and happy to play anyone that didn't target my Kroxigor whilst I faffed about getting him to throw the ball around.
Without my rose-tinted glasses on I know there were plenty of things that killed the Division off especially as I think I started during its decline. It was cliquey, mostly massively developed teams that put new coaches off starting and extremely destructive of teams because you knew would face them again. I still think though that the framework has positives suitable for 2020 Seasons, just need someone cleverer (or just unbiased/nostalgic) than me to iron out the problems. Regardless of how things end up being organised people will be happy to play and some will find things that foretell the end of the world as we know it. |
_________________
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 09:12 |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 09:24 |
|
Oh. Well I’d be interested to know the truth of that. I’m relatively sure that I saw Christer present a number that was underdogs win 48 % of the time regardless of TV, or something of that order. Distinctly, because I remember thinking ‘yes, but are the inducement mechanics actually fun, compared to playing a 50/50 game in the first place?’
But I don’t have a quote to hand and my memory is awful, so I’m happy to be proven to be talking rubbish. As ever.
(I also suspect that number changed when Wizards weren’t enabled.) |
|
|
mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
| Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 10:36 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | I agree with PurpleChest. ...
I am more than happy to be proven wrong in a year, or whatever. But for now, I don’t think changing the basis of matchmaking online is the way I’d go. |
Same here. How could you be proven wrong in a year if there is no actual attempt to change the MM including periods of testing another approach?
It's not like the saying "Don't fix what's not broken" really applies here as there have always been discussions about fumbbl's box and cyanide's match making algorythmn (cyanide btw won't include season redraft inn their bb3).
And it's not only about Stunties (who don't work properly in box as they are not intended to face even TV), also teams simply having to deal with mng players could benefit and would be more likely able to fill their temporary gap than if they'd face a team of same TV.
Before Box Trophies we had demotivating low team diversity and it really improved much with the inclusion of these meta tournaments. Further improvements are always possible.
Based on the reactions here and conversations with other coaches ingame I have the impression there is quite a demand/interest for emphasizing the league and draft aspect of BB20. Fumbbl is in a state of change anyway, if there is a time to try things it is now. |
_________________
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 11:15 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | Oh. Well I’d be interested to know the truth of that. I’m relatively sure that I saw Christer present a number that was underdogs win 48 % of the time regardless of TV, or something of that order. Distinctly, because I remember thinking ‘yes, but are the inducement mechanics actually fun, compared to playing a 50/50 game in the first place?’
But I don’t have a quote to hand and my memory is awful, so I’m happy to be proven to be talking rubbish. As ever.
(I also suspect that number changed when Wizards weren’t enabled.) |
I guess that it might be said that it is not a statistically significant difference overall. But I believe that the gap widens as the TV gap widens.
With most matches being played with small differences, "generally" I suppose there wouldn't be much difference.
I'm not going to offer any evidence though. 
Lies, damn lies, etc. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 11:47 |
|
| almic85 wrote: |
All this is a big theoretical argument though as Competitive division doesn’t force the use of a match making system. You can still pick whatever team you want to play against, organise a password and have both players log on and play.
While that gives people some leeway to play as they want, it does also open up the system to exploit if someone builds their team for the entire season against favourable teams then starts playing match maker games along the way. So you will start hitting teams that have been optimised to win at certain parts in the season cycle, and not really have any way to take it into account if your selected opponent is purely based on games played this season. |
Exactly, well put. Since we have to suck up the coexistence of GF and Box in the same division, at least it would be nice to have an option to play ONLY vs other Box teams to avoid that exploit.
Pares cum paribus. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 12:01 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | almic85 wrote: |
All this is a big theoretical argument though as Competitive division doesn’t force the use of a match making system. You can still pick whatever team you want to play against, organise a password and have both players log on and play.
While that gives people some leeway to play as they want, it does also open up the system to exploit if someone builds their team for the entire season against favourable teams then starts playing match maker games along the way. So you will start hitting teams that have been optimised to win at certain parts in the season cycle, and not really have any way to take it into account if your selected opponent is purely based on games played this season. |
Exactly, well put. Since we have to suck up the coexistence of GF and Box in the same division, at least it would be nice to have an option to play ONLY vs other Box teams to avoid that exploit.
Pares cum paribus. |
I agree.
But you need to convince the person who has to code it that enough people will play it long term to be worth the bother.
You are talking about having two Boxes when some timezones barely support one. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Rawlf
Joined: Jul 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 12:19 |
|
Thank you all for the kind comments.
I was hoping the discussion would go deeper than what number should be used for blackbox matchmaking.
I can think of a host of such parameters, but I don't see my own opinion as very relevant for how the community should organize itself. If you ask 100 FUMBBL coaches you will get over 100 opinions on the matter, a mutual agreement will never happen. See the ClawPOMB thread for proof of this.
And it is not needed either, Christer will make the call eventually.
Also, we do not even have blackbox yet, matchmaking is taking place on the gamefinder. And on gamefinder, everybody takes matches by his own standards anyway. You can go with 'games this season' right now, or you can use TV as suggested by the site. All the info you could possibly want is just a click away here. And most people I dare say will look at the individual team (does it have tackle? MB? A bench? Dodge?) and the coach (CR bracket or name even). Still, displaying 'games this season' here instead of 'TV' here would go a long way in terms of getting closer to the new rules IMO.
I have always loved Ranked for the maximum of freedom of choice it gives. And I was never bothered by other coaches abusing it to cherry pick, which is mostly betraying themselves IMO.
So what is the kind of game we should play?
Individual opinions wont help much finding an answer. As a community, we need a common starting ground to work something out from. And I can see two.
A) Tradition. Go with what is so deeply ingrained in everybody's brain since LRB4. People have learned equal TV = fair and we could just leave it there even though it is so obviously and blatantly wrong. If this is the solution that creates the least unrest among coaches, that is a value in itself.
We would have to adjust TV though, it should at least reflect if a team brings Morg or not etc. That wouldn't be much of a problem though, as using TV for matchmaking is a huge houserule to begin with, so no need to be cautious with changes to it.
We need to be aware it is a houserule though. It will be like swapping a card from a house of cards for a differently shaped one. Because a change you make to one part of the rules changes the static of the balance of the rules as a whole. Changes in one part have immediate effects to all other parts.
I am not surprised to see BB16's elite coaches PurpleChest and Purplegoo in favour of this btw. Giving up their lead in how to be successful in TV matched games cant be appealing to them. And going away from TV leads to more inducements and thus more random elements, which always help the inferior side. Superior coaches want control over everything, so inducements have to be seen as bad in general by top dogs. I find that understandable but also a little sad, as they would surely be elite coaches in whatever matchmaking system.
B) The rulebook. The other common starting ground that we all share is the rulebook. Instead of following indiviual ideas, we could look at the rulebook and try to find out what it has to say on the matter. And not just the clearly worded out parts, but also the underlying intent of the rules.
This is precisely what Christer did with regards to seasons. He cut the age old FUMBBL tradition of perpetual team building (which hurt many coaches to the point some left the site already) in favor of following the ideals of the rulebook as best as possible.
It would only be consistent to me to make the same call on the subject of matchmaking. Cut the old tradition of using TV (that was sadly necessary in LRB4, was bad and misleading in CRP/BB16 and will be toxic in BB20) and try out what the rulebook wants us to use.
I think the majority of people is open for this cultural change. Those who aren't have left after hearing about seasons already. Even the elite coaches have proclaimed they want to give the new rules a shot. I do understand that their voices are louder than those of the teambuilders, though. So hurting them might bring a stronger echo than hurting the teambuilders did.
TL;DR Before a call is made about the parameters of matchmaking, FUMBBL needs to decide which way to go at this crossroads. Follow the tradition of TV, or follow the intent of the new rules. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 12:33 |
|
As an aside, I don't think that good coaches don't like inducements for a matter of control about everything. In my opinion the main reason is that the inducements are not meant to fully bridge the TV gap by design and not all the teams can benefit the same from the inducements/Star Players available. For example, a Khemri team will not benefit from a Wizard as much as an Elf or Skaven team would do, and we know that the Wizard is one of the best, if not the best, of the inducements, for cost/effect.
If inducements allowed to quite perfectly balance a match I guess that top coaches would like them.
That said, for TV-MM I always endorsed a TV 100 difference for tier 3 teams so they could get some inducements (to mimic a bit what would happen in a private league). Tier 3 teams benefit from being at least TV 100 underdog (and even lower TV, Snotlings come to mind) so they can get some inducements, especially now that Dedicated Fans don't count in the TV (so now, compared to BB2016, a tier 3 with a losing record can't even have the small TV advantage due to lower FF). I don't play tier 3, so I'm not biased, but they should get some love. It would encourage racial variety, and would be nice for the future Box Trophy run as well. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 15:41 |
|
|
Waagh
Joined: Apr 13, 2019
|
| Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 16:57 |
|
At risk of sounding like a mouth breather I figured I would at least throw in my two cents. I also think that games in a season is probably a better matchmaking tool than TV. However, those who "abuse" the scheduler will do so regardless of how matches are made. This isn't a problem that can be fixed. [C] will be an open division and that means that anyone can play anyway they want to.
Purple Chest I think said this best
"my goal is to game in a way that makes me happy, and to try not to even imply, let alone state, that anyone else's choices of how to game are in any way lesser than mine
Have fun, it's a game."
Simply stop seeing it as "abusing the scheduler" and instead look at it as "Someone else's fun". Especially because there is absolutely nothing to be done about someone playing differently than you. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 17:24 |
|
| Waagh wrote: |
Simply stop seeing it as "abusing the scheduler" and instead look at it as "Someone else's fun". Especially because there is absolutely nothing to be done about someone playing differently than you. |
Depending on how detrimental to the league certain conduct is, you could end up losing coaches. Then, on some timezones more than others, you could end up with not enough coaches to get a draw and no one getting a game.
"Someone else's fun" is why we have the rookie protection. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 18:47 |
|
| Waagh wrote: | At risk of sounding like a mouth breather I figured I would at least throw in my two cents. I also think that games in a season is probably a better matchmaking tool than TV. However, those who "abuse" the scheduler will do so regardless of how matches are made. This isn't a problem that can be fixed. [C] will be an open division and that means that anyone can play anyway they want to.
Purple Chest I think said this best
"my goal is to game in a way that makes me happy, and to try not to even imply, let alone state, that anyone else's choices of how to game are in any way lesser than mine
Have fun, it's a game."
Simply stop seeing it as "abusing the scheduler" and instead look at it as "Someone else's fun". Especially because there is absolutely nothing to be done about someone playing differently than you. |
I wholeheartedly agree. But still, since it's not a puzzle or a one-man sport, but it's a game between two people, a certain degree of assessment of the opponent's expectations and fun must be made, or at least taken into consideration. Of course it's a gray area, but there's definitely ways to play that take away the fun from the other side. Rules can't "completely" avoid that, but they help in making the experience cohesive instead of divisive. I think. |
_________________
 |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
This may be a little off topic, but not as off topic as Dalfort bringing up Faction so I'll throw it in anyway 
I don't think the issue is how teams are matched, the issue is a huge open division with a wide array of teams and strengths that is in no way like a league. The best way forward IMO is to stop pretending it is a league and make it something else.
League is great, it works really well and people can get all the fluff they want in there. For the competitive division, I feel we should treat it like what it is - an online computer game that people can pick up and play whenever they like. BB2 does this well with its Championship Ladder, which has been very successful. Fumbbl did it even better IMO with the Box Trophy. I believe this is the best model for how the open division should function on Fumbbl.
3-month season, 4 seasons a year. You make a team and enter it. That team has x number of games until it's done (like the Box Trophy scoring, but each team is individual rather than a squad). Ad the end of each 3 month season there is a major tournament for any teams that want to enter. After that, all teams are reset to 1300TV rebuy and can roll again for the next year.
Within this frame, you can match teams any way. All teams will always be within 15 games of 1300TV. You could keep TV matching or go fully random, or anything in between.
I know from previous threads that this won't be a universally popular idea, but I still firmly believe it's the best we can do. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 01, 2021 - 18:57 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | almic85 wrote: |
All this is a big theoretical argument though as Competitive division doesn’t force the use of a match making system. You can still pick whatever team you want to play against, organise a password and have both players log on and play.
While that gives people some leeway to play as they want, it does also open up the system to exploit if someone builds their team for the entire season against favourable teams then starts playing match maker games along the way. So you will start hitting teams that have been optimised to win at certain parts in the season cycle, and not really have any way to take it into account if your selected opponent is purely based on games played this season. |
Exactly, well put. Since we have to suck up the coexistence of GF and Box in the same division, at least it would be nice to have an option to play ONLY vs other Box teams to avoid that exploit.
Pares cum paribus. |
That's reasonable. The point though, is that I think the main rule is: "What splits the player base is bad".
Anything that goes in the way of finding games is inherently bad, and must be absolutely awesome in its quirks to justify that simple flaw.
The continued existence of the site as an open environment and not just a house for leagues is of paramount importance, and there's a lot of personal preferences that will be inevitably sacrificed to that. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
