Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
 Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 21:04 |
 
|
the sad fact is (at least in my experience) that bashy teams are more popular than squishy teams. This holds across virtually every medium. Closed leagues, Open leagues, short league, long leagues, whatever. In my experience, even in one offs, less people gravitate to the squishy teams (not none, but less).
So naturally, there are going to be less squishy teams in Black Box, and I don't see why this is an issue.
PS: I'd like to point out that given my experience in Ranked, I'd say I've played more "squishy" teams in [B] than I ever did in [R] |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm
Last edited by Snappy_Dresser on %b %15, %2009 - %00:%Jan; edited 2 times in total |
|
asharak
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 21:55 |
|
That is inevitable if the aim is to give 50/50 win odds with squisher vs bashy....
One side has no long term advantage. The other does. Hence bashers are more popular. |
_________________
Give a man a fire and he will be warm for the rest of the day.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. |
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 22:37 |
|
There is no long term advantage. Yeah, the tougher races are likely to grow bigger, but there is no reward mechanic for being big, so no long term advantage. |
_________________
”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 |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 22:57 |
|
Causing mayhem is its own reward.  |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Unstoffe
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 23:03 |
|
50/50 win odds doesn't seem to be the aim... currently it is, (% win chance for team A -50) = (% outbashing chance for team B -50) *0.3
Seems to work pretty well to me, barring the TS formula imbalances which a lot of good work is being done on, by SillySod in particular.
@Westerner, yes you're right, those two coaches are clearly experts. If as a less skilled coach you wanted to get to the top 30 then orcs are the way to go. Still worth noting that while presumably there are good coaches out there with orcs, their record even at the highest levels is not as good as agility teams.
I'd guess the reason for the preponderence of bashers is that many coaches see their ideal game as one where they both beat and outbash the opposition, hard to achieve that with elves. I can't see a solution to this that I like more than just living with the current mix of teams though...
Edit - changed 50/40 to 50/50...doh  |
_________________
British or thereabouts? Check out the White Isle League
Last edited by Unstoffe on %b %15, %2009 - %01:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
Shrap
Joined: Sep 18, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 23:15 |
|
| pac wrote: | | westerner wrote: | | I'd rather see some type of incentive-based tweak that pleases the most and irritates the fewest coaches. |
I think you're right, but I don't think we necessarily need an officially-backed, compulsory initiative to do this. Groups like ELF and Rat Race are aiming (and will do more in the future to aim) at [B]. I think metagroups with their own internal rewards and kudos can do a lot to influence coach behaviour. |
Hmmm I might join either or both of those when my norse get tiresome...maybe before!
I'ma terrible coach tho and am likely to get killed more than anything! AIIIEEEE!!!! |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 23:17 |
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: |
So naturally, there are going to be less squishy teams in Black Box, and I don't see why this is an issue.
[R] |
thats certainly a possible way to see it... its basically a way to deal with any kind of problem... you can take any kind of enviroment and argue its fine like it is because all of them will suit certain needs and putting other needs behind...
im not trying to put this ultimate truth in question.... i actually dont even really care.... i will only use races that dont give me a hearth attack thats for sure but its not that i really mind... i simply see the situation and think since we have 16 races wouldnt it be nicer to be really confronted with them on a regular basis, isnt that whats balancing is about to be? to make every race equally attractive? ..or is it really just about winning chances?
in an open enviroment i ve learned that agile teams are usually very attractive opponents no matter what win chances they have.. for bashy teams a higher strengh is not that much of an issue... important part on winning the game will be on destroying the opponent and a ts advantage will hardly appear to be too troublesome since it vanishes already technically the moment you get the first elf of the pitch (for me at least).... if the elf team is going to be intact it will be very troublesome anyways.... (it doesnt matter that much how much players the opponent can provide since he will have the trouble in the half itself to stay on the pitch)
the elf team on the other hand thats facing a well armored opponent cannot just get rid of all the ts that easy... a better armored team will have that advantage mostly all game along and chances to win will significantly decrease while the other way around both teams would have had a very vaild chance...
as proposed there are many ways to handle that issue and i for myself would much rather like to see the balancing as fair as possible, rather then seeing it corrupted...
another issue that hasnt brought up here is i think the issue of the teamstructure itself.... a team will perform very good against various opponents when it provides a high amount of skill diversity like a guarder, a blocker, a tackler(maybe mighty blow tackler, a kicker and so on.... a team thats build on having particular positions and is confronted with having one of them destroyed or aged will perform usually much less good then before...
it striked odd to me in the past that new teams developing over the first 15 games without losses always seemd to be working that much better then long surviving teams until i realized that it mostly was due to the fact that i suddenly lost a player that i had since game 3 or 4 and was highly implemented into the teams particular enviroment.....
thank you for all the people, willing to discuss ....from the data we have collected so far i think its save to say that most people dont agree on giving some teams advantage on the basis of diversity..... or even just races being hardly ever played... tjats for my part all i wanted to know... good luck on further discussions
...till blackbox then... |
|
|
Ash
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 23:21 |
|
Let's face a fact. Most agility team won t do a lot of time upper TR 220. Too much casualties out there. So I don t expect to get even elf and orc opponment at TR 220...
But another fact is I never got any elf opponment upper TR 150.... and I don t think this is normal.
You re talking about not having fun with elf as it s too hard to keep them alive in the box. I agree it s too hard. But it s not too hard because it s the way it has to be. It s too hard because there isn t enough elf team. The more elf team you got, the less bashy opponment you draw... |
_________________
Ash |
|
Ash
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 23:33 |
|
Another fact... as you will be playing only against 4 or 5 race at higher TR, a lot of skill won t be pick anymore... tackle for the most obvious... |
_________________
Ash |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 15, 2009 - 00:27 |
|
| Ash wrote: | | The more elf team you got, the less bashy opponment you draw... |
that is a good point. But the onnus (sp?) is on coaches to play elves then. I suspect that most coaches simply prefer to play a bash style, it has nothing to do with the longevity of the team in question. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
Paragon
Joined: Jun 12, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 15, 2009 - 07:58 |
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: | | Ash wrote: | | The more elf team you got, the less bashy opponment you draw... |
that is a good point. But the onnus (sp?) is on coaches to play elves then. I suspect that most coaches simply prefer to play a bash style, it has nothing to do with the longevity of the team in question. |
An onus is like an anus -- it can be unpleasant to have one placed on you... Wait no...I meant to say that they are both spelled with one 'n'.
I'm curious what kind of stats other coaches are getting in the box. I've got 51 games under my belt at the time of this post. The racial breakdown of my opponents is:
Orc - 7
Chaos - 4
Dark Elf - 4
Dwarf - 4
Ogre - 4
Human - 3
Necromantic - 3
Skaven - 3
Undead - 3
Amazon - 2
Chaos Dwarf - 2
Elf - 2
Halfling - 2
Khemri - 2
Lizardmen - 2
High Elf - 1
Norse - 1
Vampire - 1
Wood Elf - 1
Goblin - 0
Nurgle's Rotters - 0
To me, the variety seems very good, and is considerably more diverse than what I've gotten in my last 51 [R] games. Adding up the Dark, High, Wood, and Pro Elves, I've played 8 games against elves (15.7%).
Note that in ideal world where I play against every race equally often, I would expect 19% of my opponents to be elves. My numbers aren't too far off from that.
My sample size is small, however, so it would be nice to see some more actual numbers from other coaches. For example, I've only played two games against Khemri, which seems rather low to me.
But I think it's worth looking at the actual numbers to decide if this really is a problem or not.
One other thing I find interesting is that the number of [R] games has increased while the number of [B] games has decreased over the past couple of weeks. If coaches are abandoning [B] in favor of [R], it's worthwhile asking why they're doing that, and how big a factor racial diversity has been in that choice. |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 15, 2009 - 08:33 |
|
| Paragon wrote: | | One other thing I find interesting is that the number of [R] games has increased while the number of [B] games has decreased over the past couple of weeks. If coaches are abandoning [B] in favor of [R], it's worthwhile asking why they're doing that, and how big a factor racial diversity has been in that choice. |
Could this perhaps be related with the Warpstone Open? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 15, 2009 - 08:37 |
|
| Frankenstein wrote: | | Paragon wrote: | | One other thing I find interesting is that the number of [R] games has increased while the number of [B] games has decreased over the past couple of weeks. If coaches are abandoning [B] in favor of [R], it's worthwhile asking why they're doing that, and how big a factor racial diversity has been in that choice. |
Could this perhaps be related with the Warpstone Open? |
And the Minors. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 15, 2009 - 08:56 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Frankenstein wrote: | | Paragon wrote: | | One other thing I find interesting is that the number of [R] games has increased while the number of [B] games has decreased over the past couple of weeks. If coaches are abandoning [B] in favor of [R], it's worthwhile asking why they're doing that, and how big a factor racial diversity has been in that choice. |
Could this perhaps be related with the Warpstone Open? |
And the Minors. |
And the fact that it's no longer shiny and new. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 15, 2009 - 10:11 |
|
| pac wrote: | | westerner wrote: | | I'd rather see some type of incentive-based tweak that pleases the most and irritates the fewest coaches. |
I think you're right, but I don't think we necessarily need an officially-backed, compulsory initiative to do this. Groups like ELF and Rat Race are aiming (and will do more in the future to aim) at [B]. I think metagroups with their own internal rewards and kudos can do a lot to influence coach behaviour. |
I do think that's the key!
Imagine there was a page, blackbox personnal achievement page, where you'd have written:
7th best active elf team
10th all-time best active elf team
516th best active orc team
...
All this with a nice graphical workout.
Personnaly, I would be very tempted to try to hit good standings there with all the races.
Wouldn't you? |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
