| Poll |
| Which method do you prefer |
| Method 1:- As you were |
|
21% |
[ 32 ] |
| Method 2:- All-Comers Mayhem |
|
10% |
[ 15 ] |
| Method 3:- Best fit |
|
51% |
[ 75 ] |
| Other Method |
|
3% |
[ 5 ] |
| Cake is better than pie |
|
3% |
[ 5 ] |
| I really don't care for whatever reason, but i still like to vote for things |
|
10% |
[ 15 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 147 |
|
freak_in_a_frock
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 16:14 |
 
|
I for one am really looking forward to a box division with the FFB client. But i was sitting at work, bored as usual, and i got to thinking 'How would people want the new ruleset implemented, in respect to team matchups?' I see 3 possiblities (although i am sure there are more) each with their own positives and disadvantages. I have listed them below, feel free to add other ideas or just discuss which you would prefer.
1/ As you were! :- keep matchups within 150 TV of each other, favouring as close matchups as possible. This is pretty much how the box runs at the moment.
Advantages :- Fairer games, more predictable and people are used to it.
Disadvatages:- Doesn't allow for the full scope of inducements to be used, and therefore limits a lot of the new fun to have with the client.
2/ All-comers mayhem:- Completely do away with matching teams up by their TV and make the draw completely random.
Advantages :- Much greater chance of getting games, lots of inducement fun, bigger variety of games.
Disadvantages:- If the inducments don't work as well as hoped it could lead to seriously mis-matched games, could scare off a lot of teams.
3/ Best Fit :- all coaches (assuming an even number) are guaranteed to get a game. The box matches the teams as best as possible, but still without a limit as to what is acceptable.
Advantages :- Great chance of getting a game. Still some inducement fun to be had
Disadvantages :- By being in the middle it could make the coaches that prefer either of the other options not want to join in, therefore actually reduce participents.
What do you guys think should happen? |
Last edited by freak_in_a_frock on %b %23, %2010 - %16:%Jul; edited 4 times in total |
|
Calthor
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 16:19 |
|
Inducements are not meant to completely make a match equal. They are meant to close the gap, but the superior TV team is still favoured.
For that reason I'm definitely opposed to option 2, as it simply wouldn't be fair. Your new team would stand little chance against a high TV team, despite the fact that you'd be star-powered.
.. Still, that leaves options 1 and 3, and I'm actually tending towards 3. |
|
|
Carnis
Joined: Feb 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 16:23 |
|
#3 would be the Boxy thing to do  . Morg'N'Thorg would be induced a lot more often than it is otherwise. |
|
|
Shraaaag
Joined: Feb 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 16:24 |
|
Second option could be devestating for new-commers and new teams. Could be okay for developed teams, but I don't see inducements covering huge gaps in TV.
Not sure which of the other options I prefer. |
_________________
 |
|
maysrill
Joined: Dec 29, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 16:24 |
|
Maybe introduce and inducement tolerance. Each coach can choose a value between 150k and 450k for the max difference in TV between his team and the team he can be matched against. If people really just want a game, open it to the max. If you only want close-to-even games, reduce it. |
_________________
Author of Firehurler (Twinborn Trilogy Book #1), Aethersmith (Book #2), Sourcethief (Book #3) |
|
Calthor
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 16:27 |
|
| maysrill wrote: | | Maybe introduce and inducement tolerance. Each coach can choose a value between 150k and 450k for the max difference in TV between his team and the team he can be matched against. If people really just want a game, open it to the max. If you only want close-to-even games, reduce it. |
That sounds awfully complicating... |
|
|
BooAhl
Joined: Sep 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 16:27 |
|
|
freak_in_a_frock
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 16:32 |
|
|
maysrill
Joined: Dec 29, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 16:44 |
|
| Calthor wrote: | | maysrill wrote: | | Maybe introduce and inducement tolerance. Each coach can choose a value between 150k and 450k for the max difference in TV between his team and the team he can be matched against. If people really just want a game, open it to the max. If you only want close-to-even games, reduce it. |
That sounds awfully complicating... |
You play an hour-long strategy game with hundreds of dice rolls, an 80-page rulebook, and custom teambuilding and player management involving dozens of different skills with countless combinations.
THIS sounds complicated? |
|
|
Were_M_Eye
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 16:45 |
|
|
James_Probert
Joined: Nov 25, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 16:48 |
|
I wouldn't mind facing a 200 TV team, ever.
A 2000TV team on the other hand... |
_________________
 |
|
Ganabul
Joined: Mar 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 16:50 |
|
Voted 1. I usually play at off peak hours, and when there's only a few coaches around, there is often a sizable difference between tr/ts; my last game was a 160/180 team vs 190/200 team. It remains to be seen, surely, whether FBB on fumbl relies solely on TV without the support of the complex but more nuanced TS, or a similar replacement (made even more hideously complex by the new skills). Outside of peak, inducements will still definitely have a big place.
2 is not a good idea at all - off peak, it would lead to ugly match-ups as almost routine.
3 is more promising, but I still think one is the best.
Note that presumably teams will declare their petty cash before they enter the box, so teams truly excited about inducements can get them that way. |
|
|
Fela
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 18:44 |
|
You forgot
4/ keep as it is
I still cannot see where TV is better than the site's TS system in evaluating a team's strength. (I also think the TS formula might still need a little tweaking by including more synergy effects like it does with blodge, but that's another matter.) |
|
|
freak_in_a_frock
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 20, 2010 - 23:52 |
|
The biggest problem i can see with keep as it is, is that TS doesn't take petty cash into account. We could force coaches to spend their petty cash before the match up is decided, but that goes against the rules, and would take away a lot of what makes inducements fun. Also if i am honest i don't like the why that weak team builds get rewarded by playing weaker teams, to me it goes against the whole point of the game. If you pick diving catch on every player, why should you then complain that someone who had the common sense to vary their skill choices team is better than yours. As it is 'lucky' teams that roll lots of stat increases and doubles are hit with higher TV, this seems enough to me. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 21, 2010 - 00:14 |
|
I don't think the current TS system is even close to being somewhat useful in generating match-ups for lrb5+.
I'm also not sure about how useful TV is, but it looks much better than TS.
I also like the idea of having an easy scale (TS is more of a science than a simple scale on playing-strength).
I think only time will show how useful TV is for match-ups at higher levels and I have only spent
little time browsing through the inducement section, yet. I think it's obvious though (from looking at
the inducement-cost), that they don't fill in the total TV-gap.
I therefore favor option 1 with a bit more tolerance on mismatches (maybe max TV-difference = 15% of both
team's avg. TV or something like that).
i also like this approach (and i don't think it's complicated at all):
| maysrill wrote: | | Maybe introduce and inducement tolerance. Each coach can choose a value between 150k and 450k for the max difference in TV between his team and the team he can be matched against. If people really just want a game, open it to the max. If you only want close-to-even games, reduce it. |
EDIT: Whichever matching-mechanism (I'm confident in Christer choosing a good path, as usual), I'm definetly looking forward to having a Box5+  |
|
|
|
|
| |
Designer's Comm...
Search
