PhrollikK
Joined: Nov 04, 2006
|
 Posted:
Nov 21, 2008 - 08:51 |
 
|
| Motskari wrote: | http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=511682
well, actually they have no so high TR in goblin team. And I have hard time to think that they will carry on after their first. |
That guy has created 4 Goblin teams, all with stars (atleast 3 of them. not sure of the retired one but probably that team also). He has found an exploit in the system! Create a front loaded team - Play one game (to win) - retire team - Go back to step one. |
_________________
Visit my MiniCity
Mega Punk!
Malicious Rex, Daemon Adoptable |
|
Draxus
Joined: Nov 14, 2004
|
 Posted:
Nov 21, 2008 - 16:05 |
|
| westerner wrote: | I
One idea might be a rule in B that you can't hire star players until the team has completed ~5 games. |
Good call lets test that out...
Play 5 [B]games saving up all the cash
start with 11 gobbos 9 ff nothing else
Don't replace gobbos that die
Then unload all that ca$h on stars, freebooters, and a wizard it would even be more loaded than original.
That could end up on the 6th game one might hire all this at once...
Morg 'N' Thorg 200k
Varag Ghoul-Chewer 160k
'Ripper' Bolgrot 70k
Bomber Dribblesnot 40k
Nobbla Blackwart 40k
Fungus the Loon 30k
Scrappa Sorehead 30k
Freebooted Troll 50k
2nd Freebooted Troll 50k
Wizard 50k
Dwarves have high AV and Blockle access to guard
Khemri have good AV & Regen with access to DP
Gobbos have low cost players and access to lots of stars |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2008 - 18:11 |
|
Summary of potential exploits I'm aware of:
1) Hiring multiple stars for a new team, then retiring the team after the match.
2) Metagaming BR down, by having one team that loses a lot (e.g. all-DP Khemri) in order to get easier matches with another team.
3) Metagaming TS down, by having 0 rerolls and not spending money. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
fly
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2008 - 18:30 |
|
when you only activate 1 team to play for blackbox, you should be less likely to get a match than when activating more teams, because you shouldn't be able to enforce playing with only one team. |
_________________
I play for fun. I play to win.
Do you play CPOMB 'cause you can't win otherwise?
No, that's a rhetorical question. |
|
morraywolfymax
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 10, 2008 - 00:17 |
|
That's not fair for people like me who prefer to stick to one team! Why should I be punished because of everyone else prefers having a bajillion Orc & chaos teams? |
_________________
Anyone named Vampy is ace! |
|
Alf115
Joined: Aug 17, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 10, 2008 - 00:43 |
|
| flyor wrote: | | when you only activate 1 team to play for blackbox, you should be less likely to get a match than when activating more teams, because you shouldn't be able to enforce playing with only one team. |
When you activate the Box, it activates for all your B Teams, not only the selected one. |
|
|
Kryten
Joined: Sep 02, 2003
|
Alf - he's saying that if you have only one team, that it should be less likely that you will be paired than another coach that has, say, three teams. I expect that this is already the case, but maybe Christer could comment. I would think that more teams would mean more chances that you will be a good match for whichever coach the box is choosing an opponent for. |
|
|
Kill-Kill
Joined: Nov 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 10, 2008 - 02:36 |
|
One thing I would like to see is the possibility to deactivate if something comes up, before the draw, of course. |
_________________
Your words are just bloody fallacy
A house of cards, painted white
Tried to recreate Normandy
But you made up the reasons to fight |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 10, 2008 - 10:40 |
|
Kryten: The way Christer has discribed the formula it is not less likely for you to be paired if you only have one team compared to if you have multiple teams. |
|
|
PTGMach
Joined: Oct 12, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 10, 2008 - 22:28 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Kryten: The way Christer has discribed the formula it is not less likely for you to be paired if you only have one team compared to if you have multiple teams. |
not by the formula, though if that one team is a difficult match, then the odds alter some, but only slightly.
however, having more teams -does- make it more likely that you will be scheduled a more -even- match. but your oddball team might rarely see play, then. |
|
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 14:59 |
|
| westerner wrote: | Summary of potential exploits I'm aware of:
1) Hiring multiple stars for a new team, then retiring the team after the match. |
This will not be a problem as long as Stars are correctly priced for TS.
| westerner wrote: |
2) Metagaming BR down, by having one team that loses a lot (e.g. all-DP Khemri) in order to get easier matches with another team. |
This is a genuine problem.
The lesson here is simple enough: If you reward people for losing games, some people will make sure that they lose games.
The same goes for bashing/not bashing.
| westerner wrote: | | 3) Metagaming TS down, by having 0 rerolls and not spending money. |
Provided TS actually reflects the power of the team properly, this is not a problem. Where TS doesn't represent the power of the team properly, it's the TS formula that needs to be changed. If there are small discrepancies, then it's only proper that you meta-game these (the same way you can meta-game TR for SMACK purposes). |
_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”
—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 15:08 |
|
| PTGMach wrote: | | CircularLogic wrote: | | Kryten: The way Christer has discribed the formula it is not less likely for you to be paired if you only have one team compared to if you have multiple teams. |
not by the formula, though if that one team is a difficult match, then the odds alter some, but only slightly.
however, having more teams -does- make it more likely that you will be scheduled a more -even- match. but your oddball team might rarely see play, then. |
On the contrary - the scheduler takes the team that is hardest to match and matches it first! So as long as there are teams within 15TS, being hard to match increases your chances to be matched. |
|
|
fly
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 15:20 |
|
this matches my observations, CL |
_________________
I play for fun. I play to win.
Do you play CPOMB 'cause you can't win otherwise?
No, that's a rhetorical question. |
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | On the contrary - the scheduler takes the team that is hardest to match and matches it first! |
In fact, it's not quite as simple anymore.
What the code does now is that it calculates all suitability scores as usual, and then runs three passes of the scheduling algorithm.
The first pass is similar to what I've described before: Take the most unsuitable match, and pair the respective coaches to their best match.
The second pass does the exact opposite, starting with the most suitable matchup.
Finally, I run a random order pass, taking pairs randomly and scheduling those against the best matchup available.
The chosen schedule is the one that has the highest suitability sum. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 11, 2008 - 15:33 |
|
|
|
|
| |
All Star Bowl!
Search
