mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
 Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 21:06 |
 
|
| Garion wrote: | | Agreed I've said many times in this thread there should still be a 15% cap on tv difference. That said elves can cope in that match up and still win. Imagine khemri trying to play up that tv though, they would be properly screwed. |
15%? Wouldn't that functionally mean no Morg except at the highest of TVs? |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 21:06 |
|
I would list all the games that have gone the opposite way, but the list would take too much time to make. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 21:07 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Garion wrote: | | Agreed I've said many times in this thread there should still be a 15% cap on tv difference. That said elves can cope in that match up and still win. Imagine khemri trying to play up that tv though, they would be properly screwed. |
15%? Wouldn't that functionally mean no Morg except at the highest of TVs? |
I'd gladly give up Morg for some actual games. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 21:10 |
|
Morg's feelings are hurt. He'll just be over on that grassy field picking daisies till you apologize and hire him. |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 21:12 |
|
| Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | I would list all the games that have gone the opposite way, but the list would take too much time to make. |
The lists either way would be pretty similar in length, actually. As shown by the stats previously quoted, however big the TV gap gets, the odds of the underdog losing never go significantly over 50%. |
_________________
 Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
Dunenzed
Joined: Oct 28, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 21:16 |
|
| xnoelx wrote: | | Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | I would list all the games that have gone the opposite way, but the list would take too much time to make. |
The lists either way would be pretty similar in length, actually. As shown by the stats previously quoted, however big the TV gap gets, the odds of the underdog losing never go significantly over 50%. |
And are no worse than certain racial pairings. |
|
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 21:23 |
|
Great point Dunenzed.
That was a much fairer game than say flings vs dorfs of any TV. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 21:31 |
|
| Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | Oooook... so maybe there should be some kind of reasonable TV limit to games?
2500tv Max/Max Cpomb spam vs 1600tv Elves. Granted, some people like challenges and all that, but this is just plain silly. |
It's not spring yet, put it back in the ground squirrel!
Well........yes and no. It could be better. These 1600 TV elves in box, generally run around with 11 men or less. If it's 11, that's squad members taking hits.
If you've got that much in inducements, you can limit the impact those monsters are going to have against your team.
This gives more freedom to your 5 skilled guys, and 5 skilled elves can win anything with the right dice.
There are few box teams Azyx vamps for instance that seem to happy mixing against this type of team. Saying that, there aren't many that are at that sort of TV, is there? |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 22:06 |
|
| xnoelx wrote: | | Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | I would list all the games that have gone the opposite way, but the list would take too much time to make. |
The lists either way would be pretty similar in length, actually. As shown by the stats previously quoted, however big the TV gap gets, the odds of the underdog losing never go significantly over 50%. |
I can't find these stats in the thread that you imply indicate that Inducements level things up regardless of the size of the TV gap. I'd be really very interested to see them (leaving out the word 'significantly', because I don't really want to engage in a dialogue about statistics). If I've misunderstood the post or been hugely blind, I'm sorry!
For me, Inducements are absolutely fine (better than fine, good) for meeting up with a friend playing Blood Bowl or for situations where artificially evening games up by adding in some random factors are desirable. However, if good coaches of a similar level are playing, I expect the bigger team to do the business 'significantly' more than the smaller team. OK, so some Elves might get a jammy Wizard and a Blitz! but as others before me indicate, young bashy teams don't benefit half as much, and the Elves that might win now might well be snookered for winning in the medium term. I don't want to get into the 'underdog should win x % of the time' stuff oft quoted in these sorts of discussions, because I don't feel that's based upon solid ground.
For me, in one off pickup games where there are plenty of teams to choose from (ideally what R and B are), the most desirable scenario is that my opponent and I have the same chance of winning before the teams take to the pitch (or should I say, have the same number of resources at our disposal, if he's invested in 11 Fend, that's his lookout). More than that; it's desirable to me that games are decided on solid things, not whether this Fireball is amazing or these 5 Dirty Tricks go mental. That's fun sometimes (and we all enjoy it sometimes), but I'd prefer the baseline to be coach A with team A vs. coach B with team B, leaving the randomiser levelers at home.
I suppose that's a lot of text to say 'this is one of the reasons I play in Ranked'. If I didn't find the Blood Bowl of B dull, this situation where games like the one Fouly mentions are possible outside of tournaments wouldn't flip my switch if I had to play them too often. I suppose they exist because in days of lower traffic, it's that or nothing?
But anyway, wider point apart, I'd love to see these stats, because intuitively, that sounds wrong?
Footnote: I <3 cyclical threads.  |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 22:15 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | | Footnote: I <3 cyclical threads. |
Glad you liked it coz I was thinking of you when I posted here again  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 22:28 |
|
Frankly, I don't want to hunt through 70 pages of this thread, and an equally silly number of pages in the CPOMB complaints thread looking for the original post, but it wasn't too long ago, and as I recall the stats were taken from koadah's site.
In summary, the rough numbers were: for TV gaps over 250 TV, the percentages for overdog win, draw, underdog win were around 50, 15, 35. And again at over 350, the number were very similar (if anything a percentage point or two better for the underdog). So there is a "significant" difference in pure win percentage. But the odds of not losing (win & draw) for the underdog are equal to the odds of the overdog winning: 50/50.
And on a separate occasion Christer mentioned on IRC that with his access to the database, he could see that however big the TV gap got, this held roughly true throughout. My original post conflated all that for brevity, because, as you noted, this has all been said before.
I mostly get the point the people opposed to TV gaps are making, and which you reiterated very reasonably. However, I think most of those people overstate how "bad" the situation is when they use terms like "futile", "utter waste of time", etc, which is what prompted my post. And I think the stats back me up.
And, more importantly, personally I enjoy those games. They make a nice change, add variety and interest to my HLP and ARR sprints, and even to one-off games. They give you a chance to play with the stars and inducements, like the shiny new Dirty Tricks, and they're just fun. They're certainly no more "unfair" than any number of the equal TV games we've all played, which is hardly surprising given that this game isn't designed to be fair. |
_________________
Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 22:46 |
|
Ok, I guess I'll come to the point where I get to play one of these interesting games as well.  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 23:46 |
|
What xnoelx wrote, indeed. Christer has said at least once that the situation does not worsen for the underdog in practice (though I also did not find it from the forum sadly) and previously dode and others have done data analysis on FUMBBL and on Cyanide, which came to the conclusion that the premise for at most odds of 2:1 seems to hold to quite big TV gaps (over 500k). |
|
|
huff
Joined: Dec 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 23:53 |
|
With all that said... The Box is supposed to be a TV based matchmaker. Big differences in TV for league or tournies is one thing, but to add it in one off games where you don't get a choice is another.
It should also be said that not all teams with inducements are created equal.
Out with mixmax, in with maxmax. |
|
|
rikdon
Joined: Aug 29, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2014 - 23:57 |
|
I like the idea of tht, i've been awy for 4 years and just came back. I have noticed already the over -abundence of blokki monster teams in box but i m yet to discover another way of playing. so t the moment i play with any of my teams in the box and take what i am given. the only team i never want to ply as or aginst is dorf as they are just so so dull. i will keep playing box with ny teams and see what happen. hopefully a few more people will try that and we are all more likely to get better gme |
|
|
|
|
| |
RNG speculations
Search
