PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
Garion, Whatball, the_sage. My army grows.
I, Cassandra like, have been wailing that its the FLAT COST OF SKILLS, to anyone who will listen for years. Since the vault first vomited out the death of traits and the flat cost of skills.
While 3 skills on 3 players cost the same as 3 skills on 1 player, and yet 3 on 1 benefits from synergy, CRaP (also i believe i first coined that) will be an inferior ruleset.
That was the change that changed everything, clawpomb is small potato's in comparison.
I'm just really chuffed to see so many start to come to same realisation. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Rabe
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
|
 Posted:
Oct 05, 2013 - 00:49 |
 
|
I'd love a system where so-called suboptimal skill cost less. It would very much suit my way of team building... |
_________________
.
 |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 05, 2013 - 01:13 |
|
@ spubbbba| Quote: | | Not really, in fact a lot of competitions have seeding so the best teams/players avoid each other in early knock out rounds. It's pretty rare the the underdog gets a bonus to help them win like the inducement system in Bloodbowl. |
But you have to qualify for the competition in the first place irl. You don't get Sunday League football teams playing the likes of Chelsea and Man Utd unless they qualify to get there by performing well. Furthermore, seeding usually takes place in knockout rather than perpetual tournaments. An example of a perpetual tournament would be Chess, where Elo is used to match (i.e. qualify for a competition) and to handicap (relative value of a result to each played).
Bear in mind that FUMBBL represents teh entire gamut of teams available: from high TV coached by excellent coaches to low TV coached by very poor coaches.
| Quote: | | The issue wasn't that good coaches would get matched vs each other but that teams with good records would get matched against much stronger opposition. |
With a much weaker coach, making the overall contest more even. Furthermore, like you say, the LRB 5 inducement system helps even out that TV difference anyway.
@ koadah - Either you're being obtuse again or you really don't understand the TV++ system. Teams would not gravitate towards an average record, but would gravitate to a stable win/loss difference (which would likely be non-zero): better performing team/coach combos would have a higher difference.
@ JAR| Quote: | | Now that this has morphed into a discussion of the distinction between winning ability and TV... I'd submit that an age factor (or possibly something geared around the two highest-rank players on the team) would be really helpful. |
Take a read of VoodooMike's blog. It explains how analysis can show us what better matching systems there are, and that across all TV levels, TV difference is a better predictor of match outcome than relative games played. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 05, 2013 - 01:23 |
|
| dode74 wrote: |
@ koadah - Either you're being obtuse again or you really don't understand the TV++ system. Teams would not gravitate towards an average record, but would gravitate to a stable win/loss difference (which would likely be non-zero): better performing team/coach combos would have a higher difference.
|
Don't be a knob Dode. What do you think a stable win/koss difference is?
Once teams stabalise they'll all be pretty much 8-8, 7-9 or 9-7 after that. That sounds pretty average to me. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 05, 2013 - 01:25 |
|
What are you talking about? Win loss difference will be a + or - number, so +15 or +20 or -10. You'd vary around that number but the actual number of wins and losses would be changing all the time. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 05, 2013 - 01:28 |
|
I think I see the issue: you think that maintaining a constant win percentage matters. It doesn't, not when you're playing evenly matched teams/coaches. Again, think of chess. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 05, 2013 - 01:36 |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 05, 2013 - 09:55 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | | Garion, Whatball, the_sage. My army grows |
I was with you on this right at the start too. From day 1 this has been my second biggest annoyance with the rules.
The first for me has and always will be the removal of traits which like it or not has contributed to a number of problems in this rule set too.
The freedom to pick any skills may well suit the 10 game small leagues in table top and I accept that. But in a truly perpetual league it has made the game very one dimension in terms of skill developement and player variation. All Legends look like carbon copies of each other now apart from a couple of stat freaks and doubles are all too frequently ignored over superior single skills..... lame
I also agree CPOMb is small potatoes. If two of those skills were traits, namely PO and Claw I dont think anyone would have such a problem with the combo. Yes teams would still have their nasty killers. But they wouldn't be spamming 5 of the simultaneously. |
_________________
 |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 05, 2013 - 10:38 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Dode, we've been through this. I'm out. |
We have, and I still don't think you understand it. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 05, 2013 - 10:56 |
|
I haz moved it, I haz. Not really a Tactics thread, per se.
That's all, mind. Wouldn't want to do this loop again in a hurry.  |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2014 - 00:37 |
|
Is there a method where we could work skill costs backwards from the theoretical maximum probabilities their synergy creates vs. a completely average unassisted player (read that as universal average of all non star players in bloodbowl) ? This is really specific to ClawPomb obviously, but we can measure the marginal value each additional skill to that player profile adds and then price according? Assigning an arbitrary TV amount to Clawpomb is a stumbling block of course.
Obviously this would prove more difficult on offensive skills such such as accurate since it is highly situation on positioning relative to the pass thrower. Having accurate or strong arm counts for nothing if you arent utilizing it on passes.
I think at least one issue is delving into the defensive side and measuring accordingly - wrestle has a different advantage on defense than it does on offense. Also how exactly do you measure things related to positioning like standfirm and side step since theres no maximum probability that it contributes to. How do you measure the 1/6 chance to avoid blocks at all with Foul Appearance? Also, guard adds 1 unit of strength to the attacker regardless of position relative to defender, should it be cost compared to +1 ST on a skill roll? How is +MA accounted for?
It obviously gets more complicated the more you try to wrap in to one unified pricing model. |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2014 - 02:30 |
|
You're right, it does get complicated. If there's one thing I learned from Physics and Maths, it's that it often helps to simplify the problem (spherical cows spring to mind). So let's just come up with a notional value averaged across all the skills, and apply that across the board. I'd say 20k sounds about right. Then a doubles roll should be a little more expensive, and as 10k is the minimum unit of value used, that'd have to be 30k. By Jove, I think we've cracked it... |
_________________
 Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2014 - 11:48 |
|
i don't think doubles should have that overcost really. It hinders creative or different builds, and rare doesn't necessarily mean better. But this is a completely different discussion i guess  |
_________________
 |
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
