koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
 Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 04:04 |
 
|
|
Mingoose
Joined: Jul 28, 2016
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 04:40 |
|
| smeborg wrote: |
My suggestion is (for the "right" environments) to increase the starting gold to e.g. 1,100,000 (TV110) - though I do not obsess over that number. This would allow more durable rosters to be created from scratch (e.g. with say 3 RRs and Apoth). This in turn might (a) make coaches less fearful of joining an environment in mid-stream, and (b) help reduce attrition (teams dropping out of environments because they get mashed early). BB2020 would still be plenty bloody.
Hope that helps! |
I personally disagree. In my opinion, things were better back when every starting team needed 8 or 9 FF to even hope for a fair match to be made. (I have no idea which edition that was, but basically without high starting FF you had no hope of earning cash and your team would just die. People would just refuse matchups because you weren't bringing enough fans to the party)
Back then the mandatory elf build was 11 line elfs, 8 FF and 3 RR or maybe an Apo. You could sacrifice a RR to get a positional. You could sacrifice 2 RR to get 2 positionals. But you had to sacrifice something. Nowadays you get 4 blitzers and 2 RR no problem on a DElf team. You can get 2 Wardancers and 2 RR, which is just silly. It's lame to start with a full boat of positionals, much better to build up for them. |
|
|
Chrisdekok
Joined: Aug 09, 2021
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 08:01 |
|
Thanks you for your answer Dalfort.
I don't use Discord but might try it just to check out the 145 Club. |
|
|
stej
Joined: Jan 05, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 09:52 |
|
Lame, maybe. But the season rules removes that element of teambuilding anyway.
Make a team of 11 linemen, concede all your games in the first season, start season 2 with 1350TV (or whatever the cap is) to build a brand new team with.
May aswell up the starting value to the redraft cap |
|
|
argos_72
Joined: Mar 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 10:49 |
|
My 5 cents to the discussion
I prefer the idea of making the Box matchmaking algorithm including the number of matches played in the season and put a limit on the TV gap.
I've never really liked matchmaking with huge TV gap (+400... + 1000). The reason is very simple: when two teams meet at a huge TV gap if you don't play Tier3 stunty (like Snotlings where inducements ARE an INTEGRANT part of the team), the cost/benefit of inducements will never balance your team. Let's say a team of Undead, Necro or Dwarfs TV 1600 meets a team of Chaos Dwarfs at TV 2200 spammed with CLAWMB. With 600k of inducements you can buy Igor, the Wizard and maybe one starplayer which is not "integrated" with your team but have skills you might not have chosen. Ultimately there will always be a heavy imbalance. But I guess with the "re-draft" mechanism this problem doesn't arise, right?
On the GF (Game Finder, i.e. when you choose your opponent) this problem does not arise. Unless you play Snotlings or Stunty Tier3 teams you will never look for teams with too high a TV gap. At least if you like a lot the inducements. But we can maybe discuss about the effectiveness of many inducements in Tier1/2 teams... this maybe is another forum post. I think or you develop your team because you WANT to purchase inducement, or if you develop your team for a certain tactic game havig to chose some iunducement from a fixed list does not necessarly integrate your game tactic.
Finally: many say that the high TV gap is the only way to guarantee games in the box as the number of users is not high. I understand this reason. But it should also be understood that not many coaches like to play a game where they start underdog by -500 and so if they can they want to avoid it which seems to me to be an equally legitimate choice. |
|
|
mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 11:34 |
|
| stej wrote: | Lame, maybe. But the season rules removes that element of teambuilding anyway.
Make a team of 11 linemen, concede all your games in the first season, start season 2 with 1350TV (or whatever the cap is) to build a brand new team with.
May aswell up the starting value to the redraft cap |
It doesn't remove but changes teambuilding.
If you think fielding only linemen is a good strategy try it, some did so already before drafts were a thing. But if you don't win games you lose DF/income and lack TDs which also add to your redraft budget. Not sure this gives you an advantage for the following season.
| argos_72 wrote: |
I've never really liked matchmaking with huge TV gap (+400... + 1000). The reason is very simple: when two teams meet at a huge TV gap if you don't play Tier3 stunty (like Snotlings where inducements ARE an INTEGRANT part of the team), the cost/benefit of inducements will never balance your team. Let's say a team of Undead, Necro or Dwarfs TV 1600 meets a team of Chaos Dwarfs at TV 2200 spammed with CLAWMB. With 600k of inducements you can buy Igor, the Wizard and maybe one starplayer which is not "integrated" with your team but have skills you might not have chosen. Ultimately there will always be a heavy imbalance. But I guess with the "re-draft" mechanism this problem doesn't arise, right? |
Gotta keep in mind that inducements changed since BB16. There might exist excessive data for winrates based on TV/inducements for BB16 in old settings but the new rules are still "young" and just recently part of fumbbl.
The strength of inducements might have changed.
Some NAF tournaments banned star players because they were soo strong. And eventually these players will gain their special skills here (f.i. fouling twice with Black Gobbo).
Also it is unlikely you will meet TV 2200 CLAWMB Chaos Dwarfs as soon as the redraft after X games is integrated. In general you will |
_________________
 |
|
Chrisdekok
Joined: Aug 09, 2021
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 12:10 |
|
This is what I find contradictory. On one side there is a general opinion that inducements are too weak. On the other side I read a lot of posts about house rules limiting inducements like star players and wizards because they are too strong. I haven't read about any house rules that make inducements stronger. So which way do you want to have it  |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 12:34 |
|
Some teams can benefit more from certain inducements.
Agile teams can exploit better the opportunity of a Wizard's spell, unlike bash teams.
A babe is not as useful to Dwarfs/Chaos Dwarfs as to an AV 8+ team.
Not all the teams have access to the same Star Players, some are good for their price, other ones aren't.
Moreover, since the TV calculation is not very accurate, the higher the TV (and TV gap) the less accurate it is, because with many skills there are more "hidden synergies" not taken into account by the TV and the calculation error is amplified.
TV is not accurate, but it is less inaccurate, generally speaking, if the TV gap between the 2 teams is small.
There are exceptions because some rosters have discounted skills and/or players and because a team could have discounted skills hard-countering skills on the opponent team.
For example Dwarf pay Tackle 10 TV on their Blockers, Amazons spam Dodge cancelled by Tackle, so 1000 TV Dwarfs vs TV 1000 Amazons is not a balanced game, unlike the TV would suggest.
Instead, if we talk about tier 3 teams, they suck by design and being able to get a Wizard, bribes, Star Players improves them (because their rostered players are bad). Inducements, in that case, help "mechanically" the tier 3 teams.
Snotlings can get bribes to keep the Pump Wagons on the pitch, Riotous Rookies to foul, a Wizard;
Halflings can hire a Master Chef or a Star Player;
Goblins can get bribes.
Tier 3 teams don't suddenly become good because they get inducements, but they at least they have more chances and can be played a bit better because they can foul more (their players are cheap so fouls are a good trade-off), have more ST 5 players on the pitch and so on.
Tier 3 teams are more frustrating to play if they can't get some inducements.
In my opinion there is no need to punish coaches wanting to play tier 3 by not giving them some inducements.
On the other hand, this should not become exploitable in MM play.
Some inducements are ok, but I would not like to face super low TV tier 3 teams with lot of TV spent on inducements. |
|
|
Chrisdekok
Joined: Aug 09, 2021
|
 Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 13:05 |
|
I understand this but it is a whole different thing than saying that inducements doesn't work to balance TV difference because they are to weak/strong.
And isn't this how blood bowl should work with a lot of randomness and "unfair" matchups (Rock, siccors, paper element).
As a weak coach I'm biased to prefering a more random less chesslike game. If the right matchup or inducements give me a tiny chance to win against a superior coach I'm happy with that  |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 13:09 |
|
| Chrisdekok wrote: | | If the right matchup or inducements give me a tiny chance to win against a superior coach I'm happy with that |
Then you should play in the Box as soon as it will be possible.  |
|
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 13:10 |
|
| Chrisdekok wrote: | I understand this but it is a whole different thing than saying that inducements doesn't work to balance TV difference because they are to weak/strong.
And isn't this how blood bowl should work with a lot of randomness and "unfair" matchups (Rock, siccors, paper element).
As a weak coach I'm biased to prefering a more random less chesslike game. If the right matchup or inducements give me a tiny chance to win against a superior coach I'm happy with that |
Yes. I agree but there are some vocal coaches who want teams and games to be as even as possible. I prefer some randomness. |
|
|
Chrisdekok
Joined: Aug 09, 2021
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 13:25 |
|
I get it that when two top coaches battle it out they want to win by skill and not randomness.
That said I find it strange to add house rules to a game with official rules that make strong players beat weak players 10/10 times instead of 9/10 times. From my experience with tabletop gaming you want the opposite effect with house rules. To give the weaker players slightly better chance to beat the strong. |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| koadah wrote: | | mister__joshua wrote: | 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. |
I think that you should stick to the Box trophy. I think that it is better for team diversity.
Try to rig it so that it can run multiple times a year.
How long would it take 3 teams to play 8,10,12 games?
You could skip coaches fees on season one to encourage teams to play a second season.
Oh yeah, that is assuming that it is not just new teams only. |
You could still keep the factors that encourage diversity though. Racial leader awards etc. You can even roll this into tournament qualification and season themes. Eg. Highest score for each race qualifies.
The general point is to change the perception of a ‘Season’ from something that seems entirely negative (a limit imposed on TV and team building) even among those who accept it’s necessity, to something positive (a time-limited competition with rewards). People play BB2s CL every season. That has no team carry over, but people still keep playing it.
I might spin this out to a separate discussion at some point as it’s a little off topic here, if I get time. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
Gozer_the_Gozerian
Joined: May 30, 2015
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 15:29 |
|
The TV limit for matchmaking in BB2 Champion Ladder is something like 500k, and while it can be scary to get jumped by a kill team with that large of a disparity, it can also be fun to buy a bunch of inducements. Regardless of whether it balances the scales perfectly, it makes for a change of pace in which you get to employ some special plays that your team wouldn't normally have access to. |
_________________
Choose the form of your destroyer. |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 18:58 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: |
The general point is to change the perception of a ‘Season’ from something that seems entirely negative (a limit imposed on TV and team building) even among those who accept it’s necessity, to something positive (a time-limited competition with rewards). People play BB2s CL every season. That has no team carry over, but people still keep playing it.
|
You probably shouldn't worry to much about that. Lower TV is the way it is going.
Some people prefer that. Others will either suck it up or quit.
A big part of what many people loved about blood bowl is now gone from the Competitive division. Putting lipstck on the pig isn't going to make much difference.
CCL is fine for people who like that kind of thing. But BBT forces people to use weaker races if they want to compete in the main event. Racial title don't do that. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
