Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
 Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 10:54 |
 
|
| bghandras wrote: | I would argue that rating is not skill, so it may not help. I could also argue that rating is easier to manipulate than TV. I mean if you manipulate your roster then you may seriously weaken it. If you manipulate your record, then your team is unchanged.
|
I think you completely misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about a ranking. I was suggesting an alternative for TV in the way a teams value is calculated. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 11:28 |
|
Ok, then possibly. Please elaborate, as rereading did not help me. Could you give an example of such calculation? |
_________________
 |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 11:36 |
|
I think he means like the old TS system. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 12:10 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | I think he means like the old TS system. |
yes... pretty much..
obviously it would need to be reinvented to fit the changed design of the rules.
As a starting point I mentioned skill cost and said skills could be priced more accordingly to their value. Thought that was pretty easy to see. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 12:22 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | There is a way how we could control the issue box without changing any rules.
It would require a lot of work tho.
|
That could only be a partial solution as the rules do need changing.
My last Box game was a win. I didn't take any perm damage either.
Higher TV has just got old.
| Wreckage wrote: | | JimmyFantastic wrote: | | I think he means like the old TS system. |
yes... pretty much..
obviously it would need to be reinvented to fit the changed design of the rules.
As a starting point I mentioned skill cost and said skills could be priced more accordingly to their value. Thought that was pretty easy to see. |
What would do about inducements? If you don't change those then the CPOMBers would just end up with more wizards. (Assuming that you think that CPOMB is too cheap.) |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Wizfall
Joined: Dec 09, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 12:35 |
|
Playing with/against CPOMB teams simplify the strategic aspect of the game and positioning become less important when the number of players on the pitch are reduced and killing the opposition becoming the best tactic.
So if you play 75% of your game with CPOMB teams in B of course the game will be less tactical than in R where you don't play with/against so much CPOMB teams.
If you play with/against the same kind of teams in R than in B, it will be exactly the same (well except B coaches are better hehe).
The main difference between us is i'm not interested in tournament and team building (i mean i love the team building aspect of the game but i have no interest to develop a team above 1400 TV and don't care re-building because i like playing low TV).
Low and mid TV Box is good, i only play at those levels and have a fine variety of match-up.
I dislike the new scheduler not adapted to my playstyle but still only play in the Box because i love the fact that i don't know against who/what i'm going to play.
It just such an awesome feature IMO, you have to build your team accordingly and the uncertainty spice up everything.
Another great added value of the random scheduler is that you don't have to bother to question yourself if the game you pick is balanced or not like in R. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 12:49 |
|
One could argue that for different reasons fouling is no go in Ranked. So from this view there is an element missing in ranked which is there at box. |
_________________
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 12:50 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
What would do about inducements? If you don't change those then the CPOMBers would just end up with more wizards. (Assuming that you think that CPOMB is too cheap.) |
One of the reasons why this would require some work.
LRB4 knew handicaps that could also be pretty overwhelming and we still managed it to work.
The problem with min-maxed builds is that the skill picks are inherently stronger than what inducements would conversly offer. So, unless you genuinly believe inducements are stronger than any skill, there would still be a point in handing out inducements to CPOMB teams.
Also I think if the goal is to prevent completely onesided matchups, this would be something that really could prevent it.
(As opposed to removing the max TV diff on the scheduler for teams with 30+ games.) |
|
|
Wizfall
Joined: Dec 09, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 12:54 |
|
Matching by TS instead of TV could be a very good idea.
Something like +10 TS for each player with the blodger combo, MB/Claw combo or MB/PO combo and +20k for each with the CPOMB combo.
Even if that would give more inducements to the best "minmaxer" team we could hope it still will be a more balanced game than otherwise.
No rules change needed is a huge + of the proposal and also will make the scheduler better for old teams by only "punishing" minmaxer. |
|
|
juck101
Joined: Nov 16, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 13:00 |
|
Is it also the case that becasue Clawpomb is broken good that really people need to meta-game against it more to play on an even field again. Failing to meta play will result in the powerful build winning, which is less about positioning I agree.
I assume the outnumbered original post implies you dont have anything to neutralize the threat (or at that ppint). I guess that is common if you face 4 killers and only have 1 or 2 answers. I guess the simple answer is to kill someone back, therefore implying I need as many claws are my opponent - which kinda feels less positional based than a usual game.
For me in league play vs 2+k chaos I find loading elves up with guard early helps. Turnover players until you have 2 or 3 guard or really you will be outbashed and then killstack will amplifiy the result. So yeah kinda less positional game, but only because you dont have the tools to cope.
DP. Hmmm a big naughty area in ranked I assume is 2 or 3 dps.But really you need multiple if you want to boot a piled on player each turn. Accepting 2 pile on vs 3 dps is a big part of the game kinda is positioning by another method if the game is dictated on this. I find the great Clawpombers know this and this become a big part of the match. It might not 'feel' like skill, but if the game is 16 turns of hid and seek to get most kills then this is just as positonal as the dwarf derby in my eyes. Just skeewd.
Bench. Ahh here I will get flamed. I think in the box players think teams are min maxed with 11 players and win everything. Sorry but I find a counter to allow you play a Clawpomb killer is having a full bench. Box logic goes agasint that so I think im seeing a lot of bias here. I can only point to my cyandide experience with many games over 2k to prove this in a very simialr killer envrionemnt. Its still hard but if you play a big bench you have more ability to play positionaly every turn of the game, therefore negating the killers basic mentality. If you were 7 on 9, did you start with 15? I doubt it
Dodge. Meta game time again and your 7 vs 9 I fancy better odds if you loaded a lot of anti killer skills. Dodge is simple as fewer have the kill stack and tackle. Being ready to play over 2k means a lot of doubles for dodge increase your chances. Bung in ss blodge and I see no issue with playing fewer players AND still having a positional game.
I just need to get my box sides some games to find out more.... |
|
|
juck101
Joined: Nov 16, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 13:01 |
|
Oh to add, interesting read  |
|
|
juck101
Joined: Nov 16, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 13:04 |
|
| Rat_Salat wrote: | you see it everywhere in computer gaming whenever a dominant strategy takes hold....
It's true that these imbalances are less important in league...
|
Great post. I agree in leagues this is less an issue. Box is very bias (and cycndie 75% chaos & claw sides) so you dont get as many recovery games. That kinda is not how the rules were made by playing killers each and every game. The rules also didnt really work if you only ever stick to one TV band - again leagues dont opporate that way.
I would add not playing around the same narrow tv in the box might also help also |
Last edited by juck101 on %b %23, %2015 - %13:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
LucaAnt
Joined: Apr 24, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 13:05 |
|
| Wizfall wrote: | | Something like +10 TS for each player with the blodger combo, MB/Claw combo or MB/PO combo and +20k for each with the CPOMB combo. |
This mistake has been done once yet. No, ty |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 13:25 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | koadah wrote: |
What would do about inducements? If you don't change those then the CPOMBers would just end up with more wizards. (Assuming that you think that CPOMB is too cheap.) |
One of the reasons why this would require some work.
LRB4 knew handicaps that could also be pretty overwhelming and we still managed it to work.
The problem with min-maxed builds is that the skill picks are inherently stronger than what inducements would conversly offer. So, unless you genuinly believe inducements are stronger than any skill, there would still be a point in handing out inducements to CPOMB teams.
Also I think if the goal is to prevent completely onesided matchups, this would be something that really could prevent it.
(As opposed to removing the max TV diff on the scheduler for teams with 30+ games.) |
what I was getting at was that if you are using TS to measure the strength of a team then you should also be using it to decide inducements. That's a rule change that would upset the 'Officialists'. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2015 - 13:25 |
|
Ooh look, another 'I play Blood Bowl but can't handle the blood' thread |
_________________
 |
|
|
|
anyone know how to c...
Search
