Semitence
Joined: May 18, 2013
|
 Posted:
Dec 02, 2016 - 21:07 |
 
|
PainState's solution is objectively better than anything else presented here. All the others penalise less active/weaker/ill-informed players to some extent. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2016 - 21:07 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: |
I think the question we should ask ourselves however is - and first putting all our personal/professional agendas aside - what system can we develop so that as many Fumbblers as possible can play the kind of Blood Bowl THEY like. |
I think this is spot on.
R/B should be that environment.
So, that being said. Some coaches have said to implement all the changes in BB2016 but exclude the Season optional rule in R/B.
That way every coach in R/B can play how ever they want and not worry about a "rule" that pigeon holes teams, with respect to TV, with this concept of seasons. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2016 - 21:29 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | Purplegoo wrote: | | (what is the intended target TV of Blood Bowl in 2016, not what can we achieve on FUMBBL, although there is bound to be crossover in conversation there.) |
Yeah, I know it's retro to talk about Page 29. That's two good questions though (I'll even talk about what you had in brackets).
For the GW version the target TV, it is de facto wholly dependant on season length, so it can literally be anything. |
Then we are done here. Make it 100000 games and there is no issue. There is also no point, but the 'rules compliant' people would have to be satisfied.
| Balle2000 wrote: | What did they intend, and was this play tested rigorously enough? Only they would know. I'll tell you were you won't find the answer though, and that's in Facebook Comments Section conjecture battles  |
Do you have anything better? Not that I'm really remotely serious when I quote that face book post, but then again, in lieu of anything else, that's the best we have. And why would you assume that because it's on face book it's incorrect? But that's a different topic to be sure.
| Balle2000 wrote: | | I think the question we should ask ourselves however is - after putting all our personal agendas aside - what system can we develop so that as many Fumbblers as possible can play the kind of Blood Bowl THEY like? |
If that's the only question, then again, we are done. Either ignore seasons, or set them pointlessly high. |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2016 - 21:37 |
|
| licker wrote: | | And why would you assume that because it's on face book it's incorrect? |
The problem would be if anyone thought this comment WAS correct. And since we don't know, why burden ourselves with a faux constraint.
| licker wrote: | | If that's the only question, then again, we are done. |
On the contrary, we would just have started (creating a new system). |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2016 - 21:47 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | licker wrote: | | And why would you assume that because it's on face book it's incorrect? |
The problem would be if anyone thought this comment WAS correct. And since we don't know, why burden ourselves with a faux constraint. |
In the opinion of the author of that comment (who probably has more knowledge than most of us) it is correct. My point is that even if it is correct it's also dumb. But some people seem to think that the intent of the rules is important in a game where you are explicitly told to house rule anything you want to house rule.
| Balle2000 wrote: | | licker wrote: | | If that's the only question, then again, we are done. |
On the contrary, we would just have started (creating a new system). |
I'm not sure I understand how your new system is supposed to make playing R/B continue to have the same freedom they have now. Or really why any system would be needed to continue or even improve that freedom.
At least for R there is no limit on anything you want to do, other than the TV constraints based off of game played per team. Any (meaningful) implementation of seasons removes the ability to play freely for certain teams. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
I do not have to win my spurs in the 'FUMBBL should be free for all to do as close to their wishes as it can be' school of thought.
But we need to be mindful of
| Christer wrote: | | In that sense, I do believe that the season system is important to the intended way the game should be played according to the game designers. |
It's cos otherwise teams will rise like helium balloons see. Perpetual open play is GONE. Season end is the new Cpomb/Ageing/TV trimming and anyone not on board with that better wise up. Of course R and B could carry on as they are, just like you can play snakes and ladders and ignore the snakes. but then you can't say you are playing snakes and ladders. You can 'play' BB without TV trimming mechanisms, but you're either building space marines, or in a NAF 'no consequences' game.
and
| Christer wrote: | Obviously, this stuff would need some more work and planning (not to mention a fair bit of coding on my end) but I think it would certainly be viable as a method of playing for the site.
Once again, though, I have not made a decision about this just yet, but I do think it's an interesting concept. Whether or not I implement this for the competitive divisions for the site or not, I do want to write the code to support the league system for L as an option for commissioners. |
For FUMBBL to have options is great, but they must be created (by Big C) and viable(with a player base).
Back when we changed to CRP we had a hold out, Zombie66(9?) Zombie(somenumbers) anyway. insisting the sky was falling and we'd soon all be back playing LRB4.
Christer made a special LRB4 division. A wasteland Zombie(numbers) haunted alone for a few weeks then left. Wasted effort.
Also every change some coaches decide it's all going to end badly (or occasionally that ranking anything, and doing anything competitive is bad) and transfer their teams to L (or its equivalents in the past).
So sure, keep R and B exactly as they are. Just let me grab the lifeboat to the future of BB with my teams first, then you guys enjoy the hell out of it. But lets try and limit the back side creation needed. This is coming, and it's coming for L first. So that's one reason we could maybe chat about L and what the system needs to look like there? |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2016 - 22:15 |
|
Christer also wrote the 2nd part of what you quoted, saying it's not clear he will implement seasons for R/B.
I'm really not sure that the comparison to the move from LRB4 to CRP is particularly valid.
That transition did not affect R or B mechanically at all. The transition to 2016 clearly would. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
With that said, and unrelated enough it warrants it's own post, I have been trying hard to do PG's excellent thought exercise and use a big blank piece or paper, un-remember FUMBBL and build a BB site from scratch for BB 2016.
This lead me to think:
Is one competitive division a good idea?
Why couldn't we have a Division playing seasons of 12 games in length, and another of 30 games in length. Especially if we are going to match-make any team to any other.
It would seem from the discussion we expect those sorts of differences in games played (and maybe also tweaking the cash offered as a top up) to be key in deciding the stable level of sustainable TV, then why limit FUMBBL to one such enviroment?
why not offer two?
or a few?
or a fleet?
Of course any Tourneys etc would likely have to be run separately (except FC and XFL's?) but i don't see any reason why not. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2016 - 22:23 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | With that said, and unrelated enough it warrants it's own post, I have been trying hard to do PG's excellent thought exercise and use a big blank piece or paper, un-remember FUMBBL and build a BB site from scratch for BB 2016.
This lead me to think:
Is one competitive division a good idea? |
It is a good idea, it's what BB2 does (for what that matters) and the competition is quite nice actually. The issue still revolves around if you make it challenge or MM though.
| PurpleChest wrote: | | Why couldn't we have a Division playing seasons of 12 games in length, and another of 30 games in length. Especially if we are going to match-make any team to any other. |
You could, but what would the point be?
| PurpleChest wrote: | It would seem from the discussion we expect those sorts of differences in games played (and maybe also tweaking the cash offered as a top up) to be key in deciding the stable level of sustainable TV, then why limit FUMBBL to one such enviroment?
why not offer two?
or a few?
or a fleet? |
Is this a serious question? I'm having a hard time thinking that it is. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
I am trying to create more options for people. think 12 games a season screws your favoured race? perhaps they'd do better with 20 game seasons. Or try the (uncompetitive) supposedly perpetual seasons, with 10,000 game a season, Brasky is already half way there. No, maybe 8 game seasons, and play mainly low TV?
Why would choice be bad? the popular formats would get traffic and have games available and the unpopular ones wouldn't. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2016 - 22:43 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | I am trying to create more options for people. think 12 games a season screws your favoured race? perhaps they'd do better with 20 game seasons. Or try the (uncompetitive) supposedly perpetual seasons, with 10,000 game a season, Brasky is already half way there. No, maybe 8 game seasons, and play mainly low TV?
Why would choice be bad? the popular formats would get traffic and have games available and the unpopular ones wouldn't. |
That answers the question though right? It's not a case of the options being bad, it's a case of the player base not being large enough to support too many options.
How much backlash does creating a 3rd open division always draw?
I also think that many divisions would be kind of clunky to work with, and that it would be pretty confusing to most coaches, but those are not really reasons to oppose the idea, just issues which would need some more work to make things smoother.
What is wrong with making an open challenge ladder, and a competitive MM ladder with tournaments and seasons?
You can even let teams from the MM ladder move to the open ladder if they so choose (but not the other way).
For as much crap as BB2 gets (and often deserves) their current meta actually works really well, and follow that above description (more or less). Competitive players or those who want to build for tournaments, can play in the C division.
Everyone else can play in the O division. You can still pull tournaments in O too similarly to how they are run now if people like. But you would move the majors to C. Maybe keep a FC type thing open to both.
That suggestion (which isn't mine, but I forget the people who have proposed it first) keeps R and B, with seasons only occurring in B. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2016 - 22:45 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | I am trying to create more options for people. think 12 games a season screws your favoured race? perhaps they'd do better with 20 game seasons. Or try the (uncompetitive) supposedly perpetual seasons, with 10,000 game a season, Brasky is already half way there. No, maybe 8 game seasons, and play mainly low TV?
Why would choice be bad? the popular formats would get traffic and have games available and the unpopular ones wouldn't. |
Well, lets leave out of the discussion the coaches/teams who have this insane idea to bloat TV over 2200+.
Lets, for the sake of the discussion say the vast majority of coaches play in the 1000-2100 TV range in Box/Ranked.
Well in both Box/Ranked you can play in the 1000-2100 TV all you want. There is no lacking in match ups or choices (in less you play in North American Night time hours). You can play open play and or tournaments.
So
why the need to create sub groups in R/B using the season dynamic? You can play at any TV range in those Divs and never lack a match up.
IF Christer brings in season play to R/B, in what ever form, then the debate then hinges on what is his vision for the ideal TV range of the teams.
Currently, barring the few really high TV teams, R/B are sitting in the 1600-2100 TV range for teams with 20+ matches under their belt.
Which brings us back to the question of TV.
Do "we" not want teams in R/B to get over 2000TV? 1600TV? 1500TV? IF so, please tell me why. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2016 - 22:46 |
|
FEEDBACK TO CHRISTER
| Christer wrote: | | 3. Would it even be possible to make the seasonal system to work considering the environment we have here? |
Yes. I'm almost certain that's possible! But maybe we have to think outside the box (and ranked) for a minute.
Imagine developing a scheduled mass team environment (aka new open division), which simulates league play as per by the BB16 rules. This would be a division where you can play whenever you want, but matches are effectively portrayed as within your "virtual tier" within the "league system".
FIFA Seasons is an example of a successful league simulator. Here you play a set number of games in each "season", scheduled against opponents on roughly your team's current level. However they can be in a totally different part of their own season, and even on a different tier/level. This makes for great flexibility in providing match-ups within the simulator.
Your ultimate winrate will then determine the outcome of your season. Are you the champions of your tier, or did you at least place high enough to get promoted to next tier, did you stay put, or did you get relegated. There is no time constraint on when you play your 10 games. When you climb through the tiers, it requires higher and higher winrate to proceed to the next level. Simultaneously the skill level of your opponents will also increase.
Also, instead of playing Seasons, you can play "qualification tournaments" during the week, to qualify to a weekend tournament. This is works as a qualification simulation, followed by a proper tournament.
| Balle2000 wrote: | | NEW DIVISION IDEA? |
Imagine a division where you are building a team to climb to the highest tier/level possible.
A new team starts out at the bottom tier (essentially the lowest division). The bottom tier has a small number of games/season (somewhere between 5 and 8 maybe?).
Your team's total winrate in your current season will decide if you promote to the next tier. For each tier, a higher winrate is required to promote/avoid relegation. The target winrate for each tier/level is a fixed number, so it only comes down to how your team performs, and not everyone else's.
Upon each promotion, the number of games/season will increase, and subsequently the mean Team Value of yourself and your opponents will also increase.
Should you get relegated, your potential TV will eventually drop again, as lower tiers have less games/season.
Along the way you will be scheduled (see below) against teams roughly your own team's level. What constitutes this "level" is up for debate. Is it the usual TV matchup, your tier level, or a combination?
How to get games?
Think of a type of "live scheduler" where you drop in X amount of your teams (this has been proposed before), and when the scheduler has gathered enough teams to produce a set of match-ups satisfying the Suitability threshold, it spits out a set of match-ups. The more teams you drop into the scheduler, the faster you will get a game.
If the scheduler isn't happy about the current set of activated teams, it will still try to schedule every 15 minutes like the current box scheduler. It would take some time for people to learn to use this new mode of getting games of course.
I have a feeling this kind of league simulator is a viable way of making the BB16 league rules work in an open division environment, while still providing the frequent match-making of Gamefinder/Box Scheduler.
If you don't like this idea, that's fine, but I would be grateful to hear any constructive feedback on the system.
(I haven't read all 31 pages of this thread, so pardon me if you already suggested similar ideas ) |
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010
Last edited by Balle2000 on %b %03, %2016 - %03:%Dec; edited 2 times in total |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2016 - 22:54 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: |
| Balle2000 wrote: | | NEW DIVISION IDEA? |
Imagine a division where you are building a team to climb to the highest tier possible.
A new team starts out at the lowest tier. The lowest tier has a small number of games/season (somewhere between 5 and 8?).
Your team's winrate over those games will decide if you promote to the next tier. For each tier, a higher winrate is required to promote/avoid relegation.
Upon each promotion, the number of games/season will increase, and subsequently the mean Team Value of yourself and your opponents will also increase.
Should you get relegated, your potential TV will eventually drop again, as lower tiers have less games/season.
Along the way you will be scheduled (see below) against teams roughly your own team's level. What constitutes this "level" is up for debate. Is it the usual TV matchup, your tier level, or a combination?
How to get games?
Think of a type of "live scheduler" where you drop in X amount of your teams (this has been proposed before), and when the scheduler has gathered enough teams to produce a set of match-ups satisfying the Suitability threshold, it spits out a set of match-ups. The more teams you drop into the scheduler, the faster you will get a game.
If the scheduler isn't happy about the current set of activated teams, it will still try to schedule every 15 minutes like the current box scheduler. It would take some time for people to learn to use this new mode of getting games of course.
I have a feeling this kind of league simulator is a viable way of making the BB16 league rules work in an open division environment, while still providing the frequent match-making of Gamefinder/Box Scheduler.
If you don't like this idea, that's fine, but I would be grateful to hear any constructive feedback on the system.
(I haven't read all 31 pages of this thread, so pardon me if you already suggested similar ideas ) |
This is an interesting idea, but the main objection I think some would have is that if you are not very good you will be locked into a certain tier permanently. Thus, for those coaches, they will never get to higher TVs. Indeed, statistically, there will always be some teams who never promote, and thus, never grow.
Now, that doesn't bother me so much, but it is a potential problem. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2016 - 23:36 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | | ...This is coming, and it's coming for L first. So that's one reason we could maybe chat about L and what the system needs to look like there? |
For [L], as I said before, the simplest approach.
The season ends after N games unless the team is still in a tournament. If they are in a tournament, the season ends after the tournament.
The commissioner can set n. Also can set the amount of cash for games, TD & cas.
The commissioner can also leave n blank and just press "end season now".
Anything else costs extra.  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
