JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
 Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 19:02 |
 
|
How about if, within a certain TV band (let's say 200k), there was no attempt made at all to match TVs in the box? Would a higher likelihood of inducements help dull the advantage of TV min-maxing?
I'm sure someone's probably thought of it before .. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
Kryten
Joined: Sep 02, 2003
|
Well, you could say "All TV above 2000 are treated as equal to 2000." That's perhaps not a bad way to go. On the flip side, one change that I feel should really be in there already is "All TV below 1000 are treated as equal to 1000." |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 19:12 |
|
| Kryten wrote: | | Well, you could say "All TV above 2000 are treated as equal to 2000." That's perhaps not a bad way to go. On the flip side, one change that I feel should really be in there already is "All TV below 1000 are treated as equal to 1000." |
+2
I agree with both of those suggestions  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 19:42 |
|
| Kryten wrote: | | Well, you could say "All TV above 2000 are treated as equal to 2000." That's perhaps not a bad way to go. On the flip side, one change that I feel should really be in there already is "All TV below 1000 are treated as equal to 1000." |
Nice idea. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 19:48 |
|
| Kryten wrote: | | Well, you could say "All TV above 2000 are treated as equal to 2000." That's perhaps not a bad way to go. On the flip side, one change that I feel should really be in there already is "All TV below 1000 are treated as equal to 1000." |
This isn't really going to fix the "problem" that this thread raises of people find of their 30+ game old 1300-1600kTV team facing a 2000kTV+ team (or 1800+). Which in reality, usually exists because their opponent is mono-activating a high tv team (or more rarely, possesses only high-tv teams) in an even-numbered draw.
Anyway, I somewhat find the idea of people looking for "fair" draws in the box a little disingenuous in some cases. As detailed earlier in the thread (and as we all perfectly know), even close to exact TV does not always a "fair" match make.
The history of the box is quite well known, to the effect that even I know of its reputation as "no bull cdorf/minmax zon heaven", even if the reality is very, very far removed from that in its present state, and the box I have been exposed to. What it teaches us is that people will always find something to game, whether it is exploiting a very small gap in TV matchmaking, or monoactivating high TV teams; and that the player base that will be adversely effected is, initially, anyone who refuses to, or cannot do the same.
In an environment where so many are dedicated to making teams which are, let's face it, thoroughly unenjoyable to be paired against, is it really that surprising that an unenjoyable game is the outcome? |
_________________
 |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 20:14 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | Kryten wrote: | | Well, you could say "All TV above 2000 are treated as equal to 2000." That's perhaps not a bad way to go. On the flip side, one change that I feel should really be in there already is "All TV below 1000 are treated as equal to 1000." |
This isn't really going to fix the "problem" that this thread raises of people find of their 30+ game old 1300-1600kTV team facing a 2000kTV+ team (or 1800+). Which in reality, usually exists because their opponent is mono-activating a high tv team (or more rarely, possesses only high-tv teams) in an even-numbered draw.
Anyway, I somewhat find the idea of people looking for "fair" draws in the box a little disingenuous in some cases. As detailed earlier in the thread (and as we all perfectly know), even close to exact TV does not always a "fair" match make.
The history of the box is quite well known, to the effect that even I know of its reputation as "no bull cdorf/minmax zon heaven", even if the reality is very, very far removed from that in its present state, and the box I have been exposed to. What it teaches us is that people will always find something to game, whether it is exploiting a very small gap in TV matchmaking, or monoactivating high TV teams; and that the player base that will be adversely effected is, initially, anyone who refuses to, or cannot do the same.
In an environment where so many are dedicated to making teams which are, let's face it, thoroughly unenjoyable to be paired against, is it really that surprising that an unenjoyable game is the outcome? |
You're talking about the Barons, right?  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Desultory
Joined: Jun 24, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 21:09 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | Kryten wrote: | | Well, you could say "All TV above 2000 are treated as equal to 2000." That's perhaps not a bad way to go. On the flip side, one change that I feel should really be in there already is "All TV below 1000 are treated as equal to 1000." |
This isn't really going to fix the "problem" that this thread raises of people find of their 30+ game old 1300-1600kTV team facing a 2000kTV+ team (or 1800+). Which in reality, usually exists because their opponent is mono-activating a high tv team (or more rarely, possesses only high-tv teams) in an even-numbered draw.
Anyway, I somewhat find the idea of people looking for "fair" draws in the box a little disingenuous in some cases. As detailed earlier in the thread (and as we all perfectly know), even close to exact TV does not always a "fair" match make.
The history of the box is quite well known, to the effect that even I know of its reputation as "no bull cdorf/minmax zon heaven", even if the reality is very, very far removed from that in its present state, and the box I have been exposed to. What it teaches us is that people will always find something to game, whether it is exploiting a very small gap in TV matchmaking, or monoactivating high TV teams; and that the player base that will be adversely effected is, initially, anyone who refuses to, or cannot do the same.
In an environment where so many are dedicated to making teams which are, let's face it, thoroughly unenjoyable to be paired against, is it really that surprising that an unenjoyable game is the outcome? |
It's not just the 30+ game old 1300-1600kTV team facing a 2000kTV+ team. It's also the 15-29 completed game teams that can suffer the same outcome. So some noob like me comes along with a full roster and 5 rerolls and barely any skills, and then gets battered every game.
I'm all for TV cap as suggested if for whatever reason, only small change(s) is allowed.
Other potential blackbox fixes?:
1: Don't allow mono activation of 2000TV+ (or 1800TV+) or xxxxTV+. (A team of < xxxxTV must also be activated)
2: 15 completed game teams or xx game teams can't be drawn against 60 completed game or yy game teams of the same TV value. I.e. There is a completed game restriction where teams between 1-15, 16-30, 30-50, 50+ games, can only play each other etc.
3: The scheduler should run more frequently which would hopefully offset (for various reasons) the decreased game matchups occurring from (1) and (2).
Potential team value fixes:
1: Cheapest rostered players aren't included in team value, or are only the average sum of their team values or something like that. |
Last edited by Desultory on %b %30, %2016 - %21:%Aug; edited 4 times in total |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 21:16 |
|
The fix is this and this is the only fix, but you need to be willing to accept it.
1. Add last 5 win rate to handicapping.
2. Make it divisional but invisible (i.e. the teams division also adds to handicapping, but on the plus side promotions mean awards).
3. Make becoming the best team in the division something and give awards for striving to be the best team.
4. Only allow one of each race per coach unless there is a distinctive theme for a second team (admin discretion) e.g. hobgoblin CD team. |
|
|
Desultory
Joined: Jun 24, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 21:22 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | The fix is this and this is the only fix, but you need to be willing to accept it.
1. Add last 5 win rate to handicapping.
2. Make it divisional but invisible (i.e. the teams division also adds to handicapping).
3. Make becoming the best team in the division something and give awards for striving to be the best team.
4. Only allow one of each race per coach unless there is a distinctive theme for a second team (admin discretion) e.g. hobgoblin CD team. |
It's not surprising to me that the ONLY fix in your mind is one that you've come up with, which i'm not convinced any points other than (4) would help solve the problems the thread raises.
I don't agree with handicapping (1).
I like the idea of divisions, though blackbox basically becomes league then? I'm interested in how that would work if you are willing to explain it for me in more detail. |
Last edited by Desultory on %b %30, %2016 - %22:%Aug; edited 1 time in total |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 21:52 |
|
Only allow one team per race? No thanks.
edit: unless you mean only allow someone to activate one team per race, then maybe. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 22:13 |
|
No. I think really for division diversity at different TV ratings it's pretty important. I can't say it's the perfect thing to do, but better for the division. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 22:13 |
|
| Desultory wrote: |
I'm all for TV cap as suggested if for whatever reason, only small change(s) is allowed.
Other potential blackbox fixes?:
2: 15 completed game teams or xx game teams can't be drawn against 60 completed game or yy game teams of the same TV value. I.e. There is a completed game restriction where teams between 1-15, 16-30, 30-50, 50+ games, can only play each other etc.
|
I have a 310 game old Wood Elf team who's oldest player on the roster has played 12 games, why should I not be able to get matched against a team that has played less than 15 games? What advantage has those other 298 games given me, except experience in making up names for new Wood Elves?  |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 22:44 |
|
Because that reopens the door for the horrible rookie-hunting minmax exploit which all but killed blackbox before the scheduler was fixed to current state.
EDIT: The number-of-games matching restriction makes most sense for the first 1-30 games. Why only this bracket? Christer has spoken at length, and rather scientifically of why, in another thread. Search and you fill find. |
Last edited by Balle2000 on %b %30, %2016 - %22:%Aug; edited 2 times in total |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 22:51 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | Because that reopens the door for the horrible rookie-hunting minmax exploit which all but killed blackbox before the scheduler was fixed to current state. |
But, wasn't there a possible work around for this? Have the 30+ game age cut-off apply to the oldest active player on the team and not on the team as a whole?
So a 2000+ team game wouldn't have an unlimited TV gap if all players are "younger" than 30 games?
edit: because of beer.
edit2: damn it language! do as I command! |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Medon
Joined: Jan 28, 2015
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 23:12 |
|
The other solution: play ranked and cherry pick your TV difference |
|
|
|
|
| |
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
