Tarabaralla
Joined: Jul 24, 2010
|
 Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 11:41 |
 
|
Looking at a 2000+ TV almost mono-zombie team made me think a bit about TV. It works quite fine, but seems too easy to exploit in Blackbox and quite unbalanced to measure players' strength.
So, I was wondering if calculating TV in a different way for B matches could improve our fun. As an example, a Block+Sidestep+Diving Tackle skink costs 130k, same as a Block+MB+PO+Claw Marauder...
Not that it's not a nice player, our beloved blocking skink, but I feel this isnt representative of the player strength.
Same for a zombie or a human lino: give them as many skills as you like, they'll be expensive and you'll want to fire them after the 2nd or 3rd skill if they dont roll anything special.
Is this the destiny of any "G-only" player? Why rules encourage Legend marauders, beastmen, blockers and elves of any kind while those poor "average" fellows are better to fire even when they manage to survive long enough to reach 3+ skills? (I'm not saying we're forced to, but it's still the best thing to do to avoid TV bloating).
So, I was wondering about a different matchmaking, based on a "Blackbox TV" different from the standard one. (for Ranked coaches can already do it if they dont get too impressed by TV gaps)
My idea was simple:
1- Keep current TVs for anything you buy and FF
2- Change the skills' value as follows:
+10k: Agility skill for "A-only" players, G skills for "G-only" players
+20k: G skills for "non-G-only" players, A skills for "non-A-only" players, S skills.
+30k: Mutations
+10k: Additive value for doubles (Ex. a Mutation taken as a double costs 30+10=40k)
+MA/AV/AG/ST: same as usual
Exceptions:
- Having a starting A skill, Amazons' linewomen should be considered as "non-G-only" players.
- UW Goblins pay 10k less for "normal" skills (+10k Agility, +20k Mutations)
Players Examples:
Dwarf Blocker +Guard: 70+20=90k
Zombie +Block+Tackle+Guard: 40+10+10+(20+10)=90k
Human Lineman +Block+Tackle+Fend+Kick: 50+10+10+10+10=90k
Marauder +Block+MB+PO+Claw+Tackle: 50+20+20+20+30= 160k
DE Blitzer +Dodge+SS+Tackle: 100+20+20+20=160k
CD Blocker +MB+PO+Claw: 70+20+20+(30+10)=150k
Orc Blitzer +Guard+MB+PO+Tackle: 80+20+20+20+20=160k
Skink +SS+DT+Block: 60+10+10+(20+10)=110k
Halfing +DT+SS+Sprint: 30+10+10+10=60k
UW Goblin +SS+2heads: 40+10+20=70k
Effects: this would make "poor" players cheaper in terms of TV, while "positional-like" ones, even if 0-16, will cost almost the same as now. Mutations, as the greatest improving skill category, are more expensive (and yes, a 2 heads Gutter gains more advantage than a Guard elf. Ok, even Guard is very nice for Gutters, but this just because Gutters are good with almost any skill!).
I know this isnt flawless nor complete, but I'm just hoping this could give some benefit for a future matchmaking system  |
|
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 11:56 |
|
Hee, tee-es?
Nevertheless, I agree with your finding that not all skills are of their TV value.
Personally, I have started to claasify skills into categories such as: 30k+ (skill is worth its TV when taken on doubles); 20k+ (skill is worth its TV when taken on singles); 10k (skill is worth its TV when it is given in the starting roster, there skills are usually priced 10k) and some other classes for negative and pseudonegative skills.
I find my classifying method, however crude it is, to be of some use to me when choosing, which skill to take on different players.
Still, I am not sure that we should switch to any other pricing schema than the current one.
I do however concur with your findings, Tarabaralla, and appreciate them. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 12:00 |
|
Yeah good general idea.
Of course people would try to minmax that system too but it looks a step in the right drection if FUMBBL were to introduce a TS system of MM again.
The downside is of course that Chaos etc are bad at low TV and therefore the system wants to make them better at high TV and BB is never gonna be balanced at any TV really. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Cloggy
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 12:19 |
|
Dunno about the Chaos issue. Chaos used to have a relatively low TS compared to TR when they didn't have many skills, but once they started hoarding the killing skills this would change.
I don't see a reason why a new TS system should not be able to achieve similar results.
let's be realistic though, the old TS system, while certainly better than TV for matchmaking, also wasn't perfect and the subject of much moaning. It's never going to be perfect and there will always be douches who stretch the rule to breaking point in order to gain an advantage they are not willing to play for. |
_________________
Proud owner of three completed Ranked grids, sadly lacking in having a life. |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 12:21 |
|
So, that wall of text could have been summarised as:
Bring back TS plskthx. |
_________________
 |
|
jarvis_pants
Joined: Oct 30, 2008
|
Gotta love people that didnt play with TS. Todays task re-invent the wheel! |
_________________
"May Nuffle have mercy on your rolls." - St.Basher |
|
Igvy
Joined: Apr 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 12:35 |
|
Somthing like this has already been thrown out, look at the old awesome TS system.
Your proposal does work well for high TV, but at low TV it makes G-only players totally awesome. If this was implemented, i'd make a 8/9 orc lino team, superfast.
There is a very imbalanced problem with stunties at the moment. However i'm not sure this is the solution.
Bringing back aging would fix this problem, but the masses hate it. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 12:36 |
|
Aging was great. I'm one of the (stinking) masses, and I loved aging. |
_________________
|
|
the_cursed_one
Joined: Feb 18, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 12:45 |
|
gimme back again oh wait i can still play lrb4 and do |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 12:48 |
|
and do what? |
_________________
|
|
Tarabaralla
Joined: Jul 24, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 12:51 |
|
| jarvis_pants wrote: | | Gotta love people that didnt play with TS. Todays task re-invent the wheel! |
Oooh dont make me feel a newbie 
I know about old TS, I just added some other idea while being unable to find the old TS formula |
|
|
Tarabaralla
Joined: Jul 24, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 12:55 |
|
| Igvy wrote: | Somthing like this has already been thrown out, look at the old awesome TS system.
Your proposal does work well for high TV, but at low TV it makes G-only players totally awesome. If this was implemented, i'd make a 8/9 orc lino team, superfast.
There is a very imbalanced problem with stunties at the moment. However i'm not sure this is the solution.
Bringing back aging would fix this problem, but the masses hate it. |
First, I dont think that a team made of 5339 guys will rule so much. Doubles will still be costy, and without doubles they'll just suck.
Second, this post is about MM system, not houseruling. Just to improve B while keeping the official rules. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 13:20 |
|
| Tarabaralla wrote: | Your proposal does work well for high TV, but at low TV it makes G-only players totally awesome. If this was implemented, i'd make a 8/9 orc lino team, superfast.
|
I think the proposed system is an improvement towards the current situation. It definatly has holes but just by looking at your example Tara I don't see an all lino orc team with lots of general skills gaining that much momentum as a clawpomb team can.
Yes the blackbox solution should be TS and TS won't be perfect either.
I think what makes it so hard to improve the system is the complexity it would need to be good. Speaking of an online environment like blackbox however it would be possible to intoduce some very complex form of TS.
I believe in that the most important factor is the survivability of a player, wich is being mostly affected by armor, block, dodge, strengh and skills like regenerate and thick skull.
The second aspect of the player is his usefullness, wich is affected by basically movement, agility strengh and all skills (except regen/thick skull),
What leaves armor basically the odd man out as the sole factor only affecting survivability (and regen/thick skull).
So a player with a good survivability but a bad usefullness isn'T worth much and vice versa.
A player who is very usefull but only stays 4 turns per game on the pitch is effectivly only 1/4th as valuable as player with a survivabilty that allows him to play a whole game.
So a player with a bad survivabilty will be worth less then it's TV the more skills he accumulates.
A player with a good surivability will get exponentionally better and be probably overpriced in the beginning to create some suitably average value.
The obvious solution (in my eyes) would be to use the survivabilty as a multiplier of some sort for the usefullyness.
What would be an adquate ratio however I do not know.
Skills like Dodge and Block should in any case definatly affect both, usefullness and survivabilty.
If the system would be very complex there is no real reason why bash skills couldn't be used as aspects to reduce the opponents survivabiltiy in the equation.
Anyhow guess I'm drifting off from the originial idea... |
|
|
Tarabaralla
Joined: Jul 24, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 13:33 |
|
Wreckage, despite quoting Igvy as it was me and putting me against myself in the all-lineorc argument (wich seems pretty pointless: there are flaws for sure here but not this one ) you got a nice point about survivability.
Anyway that would introduce modifiers to apply after considering the matchup, since against claw teams almost everything has the same survivability... The problem about it seems that it would consider a team lower in TS if there are crappy choices (like coosing Diving Catch for your elven linemen as a first skill instead of Block/Dodge) wich is a thing I dislike a bit. But makes sense. It's tricky too even because teams with great bashing power have more chances to take less damage, since they lessen the eventual outnumbering and leave no numbers for fouling.
Anyway, as said, that seems to come as related to the opponent: so it needs a form of TS to use before to consider the possibilities and put some limit. |
|
|
Carnis
Joined: Feb 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 13:45 |
|
| Cloggy wrote: |
let's be realistic though, the old TS system, while certainly better than TV for matchmaking, also wasn't perfect and the subject of much moaning. It's never going to be perfect and there will always be douches who stretch the rule to breaking point in order to gain an advantage they are not willing to play for. |
I most certainly disagree. The old TS threw me 12man ogres vs my near rookie chaos for rolling 3x claw (Without mb) and fielding a dirty player rather routinely. The old TS was WAY worse than current TV for matchmaking, and the popularity of B matchmaking after the change is living proof.
The one great point in favour of old TS is that, it was essentially copied & dumbed down by the BBRC to generate the current TV system. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
