FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 00:01

ArrestedDevelopment wrote:

licker wrote:

The 'want to retire' is a TV hit?

Or just a rehire hit?

Just a rehire hit.

His final cost on the team when TV is measure for matches (ie. when it's readied) does not include his "wants to retire fee".

It makes lean teams even leaner if they want.

Yeah, that's what I thought it was, but some of this discussion was confusing me because it seemed that people were talking about rising TVs during the rehire phase.

You can't increase your TV during this phase unless you simply add more players/rerolls/cheerleaders/...

If the seasons are long enough then the entire process is pointless because you will have piles of money to reshape your team.

If the seasons are short enough (as already discussed) then they are simply a median TV cap for the teams/league. Which is really really outstanding if that's what you want, but stick it in L where it belongs.

Seasons serves zero purpose for R or B unless Christer wants to redefine what R and B are. Totally his call there, but as currently understood, seasons are simply a hard pass for them.

PainState

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 00:53

Do you guys remember back in the good old days of Blood Bowl when you could refuse to pay your players and they would get disenchant points and if you rolled under the value they just gave you the middle finger and quit the team?

Oh, I so want the glory days of BB 2Ed back.

_________________
Comish of the:

tussock

Joined: May 29, 2011

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 03:27

Given unlimited friendlies, which apparently just lack an MVP ...

The purpose of seasons for R&B would be that it's easier to rebuild the more fragile teams, given that Expensive Mistakes limits your ability to do that otherwise. The big bash squads that survive eventually may as well end season just to clear some niggles and all MNGs, and start being able to get MVP again.

Like, we could just have a thing where seasons are minimum 10 games and then you stop getting MVPs until you do a re-buy, and maybe a maximum of 30 games plus a few for being in a tournament if you want to cap TV in the low-mid 2000s. So coaches can have whichever bit they want, long, short, middle, whatever.

With a little team or broken team you get a free recovery and MNG/niggle clear quite often, with a huge team you develop new players a bit slower on average, unless you take a bunch of losses one day and then you can instantly re-buy and have a full squad despite expensive mistakes.

_________________

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 03:33

You can do any number of things, some more silly than others.

But what is the actual point for a system which is already working just fine?

I really need the actual data which shows that teams play enough games generally for this to even matter, and then that for teams which do play enough games have to rebuild or retire with any frequency.

I mean I'm sure it happens, but if it's a 1% or less then then this is still not really a necessary solution since there really isn't a problem in the first place.

Jim_Fear

Joined: May 02, 2014

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 03:49

I should know better than to get pulled into a forum post, but something I read got the wheels turning.

What about a "Ready for Season" button, whereby a team enters into a season of games (15 to 30) or a set length of time, whichever occurs first. However, after every match the team is given the option for whether they wish to play a season match for their next game or play a friendly? Think of it as having two buttons: "Ready for Season Match" and "Ready for Friendly Match". Team building would still take place, and you could still get in a ton of matches for your favorite team.

I'm not saying this is the best idea, but I am saying it's an idea that would allow for Fumbbl players to still do what they enjoy the most, that being playing matches and building teams. For all you who are doing their best to explain why Seasons are a bad idea, it's not going to change the fact that something resembling seasons are coming to Fumbbl. You might as well find something else to proactively complain about.

_________________

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 03:59

R and B can have 100,000,000 game seasons and seasons will 'have come' to FUMBBL.

Works for me.

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 07:58

How about 100 games?

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.

almic85

Joined: May 25, 2009

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 08:39

licker wrote:

But what is the actual point for a system which is already working just fine?

The point is simply that the rules have changed and Christer by his changes so far to match the BB2016 rules will likely follow suit in some way.

There is as much point in seasons as there is in removing PO, changing spiralling expenses to expensive mistakes, and allowing treasury to be spent without increasing TV.

It all just comes down to how Christer best thinks this rule can be implemented and if he is able to code it that way for the site.

Personally I think Tussocks proposal to have a set limit on "seasonal games" that will allow an MVP with any subsequent game being considered a "friendly" for that team and not getting MVP's until resetting the seasons is a decent compromise for a perpetual setting like Ranked or Box.

In my opinion seasons based on a time period will cause issues for coaches with multiple teams or who don't play very often, than having a 20-30 game season will have on regular coaches or dedicated team coaches.

IF seasons get implemented it is just a matter of Christer making a decision on what he wants the median TV of the site to be and setting the number of games before season reset to align with this median TV.

There will still be good coaches that will regularly be able to stay above this TV. That is there reward for being a good coach and people will still see high TV teams coached by good coaches that they can spectate.

There will still be poor coaches that struggle to get a team to high TV and keep it there. That is the punishment for being a bad coach. If you want a high TV team, become a better coach.

licker wrote:

I really need the actual data which shows that teams play enough games generally for this to even matter, and then that for teams which do play enough games have to rebuild or retire with any frequency.

I mean I'm sure it happens, but if it's a 1% or less then then this is still not really a necessary solution since there really isn't a problem in the first place.

Christer is really the only person that needs this data but lets take a look at your stats and assume a 20 game season.

At a coach level Licker has played 1478 games, split across 57 different teams for an average of 25.9ish games per team. Just based on a 20 game season this would imply that each of your teams would have been affected once per lifetime so far.

This of course is not actually what would happen as each team has played a different number of games so we are seeing a false high of this rule affecting Licker 57 times so far.

Licker only has 23 teams of his 57 that have actually made it over 20 games so far which is approximately 40% of this teams that would be affected by the seasons mechanic.

Based on the number of game splayed by those teams the seasons mechanic appears to only affect you 56 times. and of all of those season ens you would only have 5 teams that have had 3 or more season resets, with 1 team having gone through a high score of 9 team resets.

If I made this only apply to your ranked and black box teams your games drop down to 586 played across 32 teams for an average of 18 games a team. So on average the season rule would not affect your Ranked or Box play at all.

Based on your actual teams and games played though you would have had 14 teams affected 24 times in total, with most only having 1 season reset and your worst affected team having 5 team resets.

The point of the above stats though is to make the point that generally the implementation of seasons into R and/or B really will not affect coaches that much or that often.

If you manage to play a game a day with the same team then this mechanic will only affect you once every 20 days.

If you only play once a week with the same team like me this mechanic will affect you once every 20 weeks (or 140 days).

_________________
SWL the place to be.

If you're interested join the Fringe

Cyrus-Havoc

Joined: Sep 15, 2006

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 10:49

AzraelEVA wrote:

Cyrus-Havoc wrote:

So the only benefit is attrition?
Players are killed off the pitch instead of on it.
I have heard that before it was called ageing.

Where did I say that is the only benefit?
It also turns Niggling in an injury where you can consider to keep the player.
Also it isn't aging since you can choose which player you rebuy and which you don't.
Ageing was much more random and turned good players into bad ones without reason.

I don't believe I mentioned you at all. Nobody offered any other benefit up to then. As to niggles that is still a matter of attrition in my eyes. So the answer is sill that there are no benefits.

_________________
Not Undead but perhaps the oldest living coach!

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 13:12

How about 80 games?

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.

almic85

Joined: May 25, 2009

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 13:20

Cyrus-Havoc wrote:

AzraelEVA wrote:

Cyrus-Havoc wrote:

So the only benefit is attrition?
Players are killed off the pitch instead of on it.
I have heard that before it was called ageing.

Where did I say that is the only benefit?
It also turns Niggling in an injury where you can consider to keep the player.
Also it isn't aging since you can choose which player you rebuy and which you don't.
Ageing was much more random and turned good players into bad ones without reason.

I don't believe I mentioned you at all. Nobody offered any other benefit up to then. As to niggles that is still a matter of attrition in my eyes. So the answer is sill that there are no benefits.

It just depends on what you consider a benefit.

It creates a soft TV cap based on the number of games played in a season. Some consider this a benefit.

It allows a broken team to more easily reset and rebuild within a fixed number of games. No more waiting to save up enough money to replace those 4 dead BOB's or those 2 tree men that just died in that horror match. Arguably this can be done anyway but it gives a fixed point to work to.

It allows teams to carry niggle players with a chance they will get better and stop being a liability to the rest of the team.

In a non TV matched environment it eases lower TV teams into the environment. This doesn't really apply to ranked or box unless TV matching is removed.

In a TV matched environment at high level TV it will make this the domain of TV efficient and really skilled coaches so we should see better high TV games to spectate.

It may help minimise long term min maxing for a particular team by forcing star player recycling. Essentially you can't just keep the same three skilled players with the rest as rookies because they will leave after a few seasons or you will cripple your minmaxed team.

Those are all just potential benefits depending on which side of the fence you sit on.

_________________
SWL the place to be.

If you're interested join the Fringe

Cyrus-Havoc

Joined: Sep 15, 2006

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 15:17

almic85 wrote:

Cyrus-Havoc wrote:

AzraelEVA wrote:

Cyrus-Havoc wrote:

So the only benefit is attrition?
Players are killed off the pitch instead of on it.
I have heard that before it was called ageing.

Where did I say that is the only benefit?
It also turns Niggling in an injury where you can consider to keep the player.
Also it isn't aging since you can choose which player you rebuy and which you don't.
Ageing was much more random and turned good players into bad ones without reason.

I don't believe I mentioned you at all. Nobody offered any other benefit up to then. As to niggles that is still a matter of attrition in my eyes. So the answer is sill that there are no benefits.

It just depends on what you consider a benefit.

It creates a soft TV cap based on the number of games played in a season. Some consider this a benefit.

It allows a broken team to more easily reset and rebuild within a fixed number of games. No more waiting to save up enough money to replace those 4 dead BOB's or those 2 tree men that just died in that horror match. Arguably this can be done anyway but it gives a fixed point to work to.

It allows teams to carry niggle players with a chance they will get better and stop being a liability to the rest of the team.

In a non TV matched environment it eases lower TV teams into the environment. This doesn't really apply to ranked or box unless TV matching is removed.

In a TV matched environment at high level TV it will make this the domain of TV efficient and really skilled coaches so we should see better high TV games to spectate.

It may help minimise long term min maxing for a particular team by forcing star player recycling. Essentially you can't just keep the same three skilled players with the rest as rookies because they will leave after a few seasons or you will cripple your minmaxed team.

Those are all just potential benefits depending on which side of the fence you sit on.

Thanks that's the sort of reply I was hoping for, I still don't think it works for R or B but I can see why some would like it.

_________________
Not Undead but perhaps the oldest living coach!

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 16:57

almic85 wrote:

licker wrote:

But what is the actual point for a system which is already working just fine?

The point is simply that the rules have changed and Christer by his changes so far to match the BB2016 rules will likely follow suit in some way.

Of course, Christer has expressed an interest in doing 'something' with seasons. I only ask this question because seasons is a different mechanic than EM or PO or ... as it has a different kind of effect on LEAGUES. The others affect teams directly or actual games.

But the point of asking the question 'Why Seasons?' is because it's important to consider the ramifications of adopting them beyond just saying, 'well the rules say to do something, so we'll just do something'. That is unlikely to end well. And to the great credit of Christer and his stable of admins and confidants, they don't just adopt things for the sake of adopting them, so the discussion is not wasted entirely.

Then the question simply remains this. What is the goal for R and B? Once that is clearly defined (and again, it only needs Christer to accept the definition) then you can actually start to consider how to implement seasons (if at all) and what the effect of different lengths will be.

The current definitions of R and B (as I understand them anyway) seem to be at odds with the effects that seasons would have on them. So, change the definitions, or don't add seasons to divisions which don't need them, or, as it seems from the limited polling done, want them.

almic85 wrote:

At a coach level Licker has played 1478 games, split across 57 different teams for an average of 25.9ish games per team. Just based on a 20 game season this would imply that each of your teams would have been affected once per lifetime so far.

{snip continued analysis}

Thanks for looking at my slice of the pie Smile

But that's not really useful, as I'm sure you know. Still, even just considering it, it tells us what? That Seasons of 20 (which is on the longer side of what has been discussed) wouldn't affect my teams much if at all? Then it begs the question of what the point of having seasons is still?

Dode has presented snapshots of the BB2 MM league data from time to time, so I know that the average team there plays less than 10 games (and I think it's even less than that, but going from memory I'm just using 10), now I have no idea how BB2 data compares to R or B data, but I would guess it's not significantly different, and even if we give FUMBBL coaches double the games played with their team we still are at less than 20, and we still are at seasons simply not being relevant for the majority of teams.

Now you can argue that point either way, adopt it because it won't affect you, or don't bother to adopt it because it doesn't affect anything anyway.

But that's not really such a useful data point anyway, because I would guess that just about any team can survive rebuying 'as is' after one season, it's really once you get to multiple seasons, and the potential 'retirement tax' on important players that it becomes an issue.

So the real data set should be for those teams/coaches. Which does not include me really, I guess my B CD and my R skaven would hit multiple seasons, but generally I have not played R or B teams for 100 games plus.

If you look at the effect on those teams, and not just cherry picking the Blood Sea or Agility Monsters or other well known teams, what happens?

I don't know the answer, but that's where the question needs to go. Because if the answer is 'nothing really happens at 20 game seasons' then again, I would posit that there is no point to having them. If 'stuff' starts to happen at 10 games, then that's the length you need to look at more carefully as it expands the teams effected.

However we do know generally what TV caps are put in place at different length seasons, so we can at least show in advance that seasons of X length will produce median TVs of Y.

Then that's the selling point for whomever wants to adopt them. Because that's what R and B are actually going to get.

Rabe

Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 18:04

I did a simple experiment: I took the last 20 games of the Agility Monsters before I retired big parts of the team - assuming that would have been a season of 20 games. I then gave them 10k for each match (obviously 200k) and 5k for each TD and CAS.

I would have had the following money to rebuy the team:

1000k (base)
+200k (for 20 games)
+55k (for 11 TDs)
+130k (for 26 CAS)

= 1.385k

I could start the next season with a team of TV 1380k.
The Monsters by that time had a TV of 2230k.

Now, I did that mass retirement anyway - but afterwards I was at roughly ~1500k.
Assuming I would have had 120k in the treasury (likely, with EM instead of SE), I would have been able to do the same step, but I would have had Blockers instead of Journeymen (and with a little bit more savings I could have taken one or two positionals instead of Blockers). Then again, I would "rehire" three players that played over 400 games combined - 50 seasons. If I understood the rule correctly, that would have been impossible.

But by that time, I had decided that a cut was long overdue. If I had been forced to go down to 1500k it would have hurt.

Of course, this would only ever have been true for the very first season after a change from the old system. From 1500k my team would never be able to go back to over 2000k in one season. Next round of rehiring would probably get better, since on lower TV likely means a more competitive team with more TDs and CAS. Still, the Monsters would probably be limited to 1700k-1800k at best. Which kills the fun a fair bit, since I need quite a few additional skills to separate them from regular Dwarf teams and allow for some more "elf-like" tactics.

Conclusions for me:

- Getting really old player (100+ games) will be impossible (correct me, if I'm wrong).
- Each team is producing its individual "TV cap", based on performance.
- In a TV-based match-making environment, differences in performance (be it due to race or skill or luck) would not lead to inequalities in matchups - in a league, worse performing teams would get behind in comparison to more successful teams.

I think I could adapt to it. It's an interesting challenge and works fluff-wise (players are getting their paychecks every 20 games - or not). Seems like an interesting dynamic, too. I would really miss the option to make the Monsters a huge team. But I think I'd get over it.

_________________
.

Last edited by Rabe on %b %28, %2017 - %18:%Mar; edited 1 time in total

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 - 18:12

Thanks for sharing Rabe.

I assumed that 'fun teams' would be harder hit by this because they wouldn't have the additional TD/CAS cash which more serious teams would likely generate.

Also hit harder are teams which simply underperform (for whatever reason). Which leads to the analysis (already done elsewhere anyway) that top coaches/teams will spread themselves from the pack over the course of time.

Now I'm not going to argue about those consequences being good or bad, I think it's enough to just understand that those are what the consequences will be. Everyone can make their own decision as to if that's a system they like or not, and ultimately the deciders will decide if it's a system they think will be 'good' for the site.