funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
 Posted:
Dec 24, 2009 - 16:58 |
 
|
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 24, 2009 - 17:01 |
|
Oh and to add onto that, the Ogres didn't score a single touch down. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 24, 2009 - 17:49 |
|
| uzkulak wrote: | | IThe point IMO is the TS formula does not take account of the number of players. |
Yes it does. |
|
|
Fela
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 24, 2009 - 22:24 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | uzkulak wrote: | | IThe point IMO is the TS formula does not take account of the number of players. |
Yes it does. |
But not for the TS value of rerolls, which was the core of RRF's post. |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 24, 2009 - 22:29 |
|
| Sionis wrote: | | That's why other divisions exsist. |
But not why the Blackbox forums exist, genius. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
Wraith
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 25, 2009 - 03:30 |
|
| Fela wrote: | | DukeTyrion wrote: | | uzkulak wrote: | | IThe point IMO is the TS formula does not take account of the number of players. |
Yes it does. |
But not for the TS value of rerolls, which was the core of RRF's post. |
| Christer wrote: | | The funny thing is that if I were to do anything about Ogre TS, it'd be to lower it. The ogres are one of the weakest teams when it comes to winning games (which is the point of TS), and it'd be completely opposing the purpose of TS to increase it. |
|
_________________
Insanity, is merely the lack of fear... to act on your deepest, darkest thoughts. |
|
Vanguard
Joined: Nov 01, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 25, 2009 - 03:36 |
|
ok
lets take the starting post serious ^^ .
lets do some basics first:
8 turns
rr only for bh
now the math:
we all seem to agree that if ogres have 0 rr the formula fits.
with 1 rr we can rr 1 bh in 8 turns.
more ogres means less effective rr is.
lets say an 8 ogre team with 4 rr
8 bh each turn with 0,5 rr
so lets make it simple ^^
7,5 bh rolls each turn, as one is rr by the half rr ^^
old 8
new 7,5
means its a improvement of 8/7,5 so just increase the ts for each ogre with 8/7,5
and subtract 10 ts for their lousy win record <--- just my point
now to the rest, easy solution after every month
best race gets +2 ts to its players
worst race -2 ts
and it will balance out.
i hear now the whining of the best race, its not fair my team sucks so much, look i lost 1 game after my 16 game winning streak. this totally shows how bad the race is. bcs i EARN at least 100 game WINNING streak. |
|
|
mymLaban
Joined: Apr 20, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 25, 2009 - 03:43 |
|
|
Wraith
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 25, 2009 - 03:59 |
|
| Vanguard wrote: | ok
lets take the starting post serious ^^ .
lets do some basics first:
8 turns
rr only for bh
now the math:
we all seem to agree that if ogres have 0 rr the formula fits.
with 1 rr we can rr 1 bh in 8 turns.
more ogres means less effective rr is.
lets say an 8 ogre team with 4 rr
8 bh each turn with 0,5 rr
so lets make it simple ^^
7,5 bh rolls each turn, as one is rr by the half rr ^^
old 8
new 7,5
means its a improvement of 8/7,5 so just increase the ts for each ogre with 8/7,5
and subtract 10 ts for their lousy win record <--- just my point
now to the rest, easy solution after every month
best race gets +2 ts to its players
worst race -2 ts
and it will balance out.
i hear now the whining of the best race, its not fair my team sucks so much, look i lost 1 game after my 16 game winning streak. this totally shows how bad the race is. bcs i EARN at least 100 game WINNING streak. |
I'm pretty sure that the reroll thing is calculated already... it's called the factoring of not having the big guy trait in TS. |
_________________
Insanity, is merely the lack of fear... to act on your deepest, darkest thoughts. |
|
fenric
Joined: Jan 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 25, 2009 - 05:20 |
|
All this talk is really making me want to start playing ogres in blackbox.  |
|
|
runreallyfast
Joined: Sep 08, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 25, 2009 - 05:29 |
|
My point was this:
The problem isn't that ogres have unfairly low TS. I don't think that they do. I agree with Christer; it's probably somewhat too high.
The problem is that the TS formula in place overrates the chances of a shorthanded squad. Since short-handed squads will often have very similar TR/TS ratios to ogre (and vampire) teams, there's a tendency to get matched with ogres when you're already shorthanded.
I don't mind that matchup, myself. I generally coach elves and skaven in the box, and I'd much rather play against ogres than orcs when I start down players. Even when I play orcs or chaos against ogres, I haven't personally found the matchups to be as bloody (although they are harder to win) as games against orcs or chaos.
But I think it would be better to try a more realistic assessment of the TS of shorthanded teams. If you think the current way of doing it is fair, I suggest that you take a careful look at how it's worked out. Christer's formula really does appear to say that, in a fair number of possible cases, a team with zero players has a chance of beating a team with 11, which is obviously false. I feel that we ought to switch to something along the lines of what I proposed back on page 5. |
|
|
Wraith
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 25, 2009 - 08:06 |
|
| runreallyfast wrote: | My point was this:
The problem isn't that ogres have unfairly low TS. I don't think that they do. I agree with Christer; it's probably somewhat too high.
The problem is that the TS formula in place overrates the chances of a shorthanded squad. Since short-handed squads will often have very similar TR/TS ratios to ogre (and vampire) teams, there's a tendency to get matched with ogres when you're already shorthanded.
I don't mind that matchup, myself. I generally coach elves and skaven in the box, and I'd much rather play against ogres than orcs when I start down players. Even when I play orcs or chaos against ogres, I haven't personally found the matchups to be as bloody (although they are harder to win) as games against orcs or chaos.
But I think it would be better to try a more realistic assessment of the TS of shorthanded teams. If you think the current way of doing it is fair, I suggest that you take a careful look at how it's worked out. Christer's formula really does appear to say that, in a fair number of possible cases, a team with zero players has a chance of beating a team with 11, which is obviously false. I feel that we ought to switch to something along the lines of what I proposed back on page 5. |
You have to have the perfect formula and it'll always be up for debate... basically you want to make RRs and FF worth less, based on the number of players available... some rosters are still exceptionally powerful short handed. How would you handle that problem? There's just way too many factors to make contingencies for. A team of 8 wood elves with a 5 ST wardancer is still pretty difficult to stop, barring horrible luck. In your formula, they would have a lower TS, when they're clearly still a hard team to beat.
Plus, people would exploit that system, just like many do in the Cyanide game. Most teams run around with minimal RRs, minimal FF and 11 or 12 players max... this is done to get a favorable TV match-up (because RRs, FF, reserves and cheerleaders are TV hogs). |
_________________
Insanity, is merely the lack of fear... to act on your deepest, darkest thoughts. |
|
runreallyfast
Joined: Sep 08, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 25, 2009 - 09:39 |
|
Wraith, let me present you with a thought experiment here.
You have a high-elf team, http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=436809 .
If the last six guys on the roster were MNG, the TR/TS profile, according to the existing method, would be 192/107.
That team would look like this:
1 Socrates II Phoenix Warrior 6 3 4 8 Pass, Strong Arm, Safe Throw, Hail Mary Pass
2 Xenocrates of Chalcedon III Lion Warrior 8 3 4 7 Catch, Dodge, Block
3 Thales of Miletus Lineman 6 3 4 8
4 Epicurus Lineman 6 3 5 8 +AG, Leap
5 Diogenes of Sinope II Lineman 6 3 4 8 Dirty Player
6 Plotinus II Lion Warrior 8 3 4 7 Catch, Diving Catch
My own view is that this is not a 107 TS team. I know nothing of the history of this team, but I would suggest that the rookie version would beat it 8 games out of 10 without handicaps. Six against eleven is a big disadvantage. With four handicaps, I think you'd be lucky to tie one game in 10. It would be a legal matchup, and far from the worst one you might face.
The existing TS formula awards a magnificent -5 TS, in this case, for starting the game with 6 players. Really, however, the only winnable matchup you are likely to get with that team would be one against a similarly mashed squad. And that's only because their TS is ALSO miscalculated! Or so, at least, i would claim.
My revision would take your TS down to 87, a reduction of 25. Given the handicap situation, this is likely to result in your team playing something more like rookie vampires with a couple of MNG players. Which, I would suggest, this team would have a real chance of beating -- you'd be the favorite, I think, with lucky handicap rolls, the underdog with disastrous handicap rolls. That's unfortunate, but unavoidable -- the fewer players you have available, the more the result will be affected by good or bad fortune.
Does my proposed revision go far enough? For elves, I think it does. For any team without 4 AG players, I think it might need to go further if the goal is to produce matchups that either team might win. Which, after all, is the entire point of TS in general, and the Box in particular! But I would be happy enough if my suggestion were followed. Orcs just don't have to play many games where they have 6 or 7 players starting out. |
|
|
Wraith
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 25, 2009 - 10:14 |
|
You far undervalue the effect of skills.
Again, it's nice to pick and choose the match ups to suit your argument... I would have 9 skills on those 6 players and you happen to pick two of the most useless players on the roster out of the bunch... players that are situational (I.E. bench warmers).
You see, I can also paint the picture I want too...
7 Heraclittus II Dragon Warrior 7 3 4 8 Block, Frenzy, Dodge, Tackle
8 Aristotle II Phoenix Warrior 6 3 4 8 Pass, Safe Throw, Dump Off
9 Archimedes Lineman 6 3 4 8 Guard, Dauntless, Block
10 Euclid Lineman 6 3 4 7 Block, Dodge, Tackle -av, n
11 Parmenides Lineman 6 4 4 8 +ST, Block, Dodge
13 Zoroaster II Dragon Warrior 7 3 4 8 Block, Dodge, Leap
Let's look at the last 6 players on the roster, shall we? I could be wrong, but it looks like a team with ~120 TS, under the current method ... are you telling me that, this squad, couldn't beat this Norse team more often than not (with similar luck)... http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=303668 ? Come on man, look at things objectively. Anyone can paint a picture however they want, by picking and choosing the data to coincide with their argument. Bottom line is that there's way too many factors involved to say that your method is better than the current one. |
_________________
Insanity, is merely the lack of fear... to act on your deepest, darkest thoughts. |
|
runreallyfast
Joined: Sep 08, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 25, 2009 - 10:31 |
|
I picked the first six players on your roster just because they were the first six, not from any sinister motive.
However, to respond to your question, yes, the half-team would indeed have a very similar TS to the Norse team under the current system.
And I don't think you'd beat them very often at all. I would be ashamed, if it were my Norse team, to lose to a squad like that. If you got lucky, and the four handicaps didn't beat you before you started playing, I think you would rapidly find that you had great difficulty in getting more than two blocks a turn, that dirty players can be very hard on shorthanded squads, and that frenzy is nearly as good as tackle for taking down blodgers. Your two tacklers are worthless, and your dauntless guy is nearly worthless.
And, of course, even though individually your players are better, they're outnumbered nearly 2 to 1, and that's before anything goes wrong. If you take no casualties or KOs for the whole match, I think you have a good chance of winning.
I just don't think that's a realistic scenario.
And, besides, don't you think that it's interesting that your 6 players with nine skills have the same TS as an entire team of rookies? |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
