Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
 Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 18:27 |
 
|
HM, I like the team development part more than any other part of the game.
I'm just not sure if it makes sense to say: A good team needs to reach this or that TV. In the old rules a TR 220 team could easily keep up with a TR 400 team not the very least because of the Handicaps.
If a TV 2000 team beats a TV 1500 team even just 20% more often there is already a point in team development.
If the 1500 team would get beat every time there would be really no incentive to play such a game in the first place.
All I'm saying is that a new 1800 team is best compared to an old 2200 team. The grandfather teams are just something entirely else. They don't fit in the rules. And if they get on level ground with the rest how is that a bad thing?
And please everyone don't make this a philosophical debate about why we play BB anyways. It is not like people can't have different objectives in this game, just point out what they are. There are actual factual arguments you can bring in a conversation.
And about my own high TV teams. They are all grandfatherd. My highest new team is Nice Times End at 1830. Of course I'm carefull not to bloat my team but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to get higher. I want it really badly. If you go up you gotta be ready for SE.
That applies to leagues, open play, tournaments. Pretty much any environment with progession. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 18:56 |
|
So wreckage, I can't actually tell; where would you stand on my proposal?
HM is interested in it and started out quite for it, but then switched and now is seemingly against discussing it?
Dode is picking apart arguments in the thread, without actually discussing the topic I presented, even though he is defending it?
Craftnburn is very vehement. But I have no idea what his opinion is on my suggestion either.
This thread is very confusing. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 19:09 |
|
I'm still for it! I was just putting the 'otherside' argument across for those who wouldn't like it.
As far as I can tell Dode, Wreckage, harvestmouse and craft all like it, but need to fight about something. |
|
|
oryx
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 19:26 |
|
I think it's an interesting idea nelphine. i think it would create a new era of agile minmaxing though...
Some teams work better on a 2 skill architecture. I envision 200+ teams of elves with blodge/ss on every player and 1 or two stars/super stars. they'd have ridiculous stacks of cash.
well maybe that wouldn't happen, but something to think about.
i think that in my opinion, the most effective system is to have se done team by team. that way, super star gobbos won't charge you as much as super star wd's... and this makes sense. I also think skill combo specific se's make sense from a mechanics point of view. I don't know, just vomiting ideas here. |
Last edited by oryx on %b %17, %2013 - %19:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 19:28 |
|
any system will have minmaxing. this is a universal truth. |
_________________
 |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 19:36 |
|
I'm not fighting about anything, HM. I explained precisely my previous post and you declared that explanation off-topic. As you wish 
On topic (and I did say I liked it earlier), setting the amounts will be interesting. Some teams do benefit more from the stars+scrubs approach, but that's because of the already-mentioned ability for some teams to combine skills.
A team which completes and wins (hah!) 100% of its matches stands to gain an average of 62.5k per match, while a team which completes all of its games but loses them all gains an average of 45k per match. Concessions to you will increase your income and concessions by you will reduce them by 3.5k per 10% of all your matches conceded (e.g. if you complete and win 100% you get 62.5k per match on average whereas if you are conceded to 10% of the time it goes up to 66k).
An "average" (i.e. 50% win%) 40-20-40 WDL will net you 54k per match on average (100% draws is 55k and 50-0-50 is 53.75k). That puts the standard SE break-even point at ~2350-2500TV (step 5) assuming no losses. Losses will obviously reduce the break-even point dependent on their frequency and the cost of replacements.
Why do I say all this? Because the amounts set will need to be equivalent or less in order for this to work as intended.
The main advantages of this, as I see it are:
1. No (off-pitch) punishment for having a bench.
2. Punishment for some noobhunter types (particularly Pact, who are the worst offenders) who use a star or two to hunt rookies.
The main drawback I see is for the fragile teams. They will no longer be able to take some punishment at high TV and drop down again to start saving up for a new batch of rookies. Their costs will be constant, albeit higher than for the bash teams due to the base cost of their players and their relative fragility. That may encourage development of quality (veteran) linelves to improve their survivability. |
|
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 19:56 |
|
I think that currently the Spiralling Expenses are really not the growth-stopper for good teams, but instead the pairing systems. In Box, you can't get games above 2300k and rarely get games above 2000k. In Ranked, I think it is the same situation, though perhaps someone has better info about that?
Of course one can change Spiraling Expenses if they so like, but I feel it still would not bring us more 2300+ teams under current matching system. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 21:03 |
|
| Nelphine wrote: | So wreckage, I can't actually tell; where would you stand on my proposal?
|
As I said, as a mind construct or an experiment I'm all for it.
I wouldn't go that far to say I'd like to see it implemented or that we need it.
I think it is really gonna hit hard on experienced players. I like it but it might turn out to need some fine tuning. I think it would be an interesting thing to see.
Also, if that is desired I'm willing to change my opinion for the sake of having a discussion. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 21:13 |
|
| uuni wrote: | I think that currently the Spiralling Expenses are really not the growth-stopper for good teams, but instead the pairing systems. In Box, you can't get games above 2300k and rarely get games above 2000k. In Ranked, I think it is the same situation, though perhaps someone has better info about that?
Of course one can change Spiraling Expenses if they so like, but I feel it still would not bring us more 2300+ teams under current matching system. |
This isn't so much about growth, but more about teams camping at a certain TV. What happens with the high end? Who knows? That's why it needs testing. |
|
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 21:52 |
|
@harvestmouse: Ok, I get and appreciate that effort. Still, minmaxing seems most feasible with low SPP-players: full Blodge Amazons and ClawPOMB CDs are both less than Stars (4 skillups). At least according to the original post, stardom would be the baselevel. CDs could have full clawpombs with the proposition, dwarves full pomb guard and many more either blodge or pomb. These teams would not be affected anyhow by the proposition.
I think I miss something, would you like to clarify? |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 22:34 |
|
yup, amazons would RULE under this system. |
_________________
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 23:08 |
|
Would it make any difference? The minmaxed zons as they are made now, I don't think would be affected either way.
A min maxed zon team as I see it is either:
Very low: blodge linos
Quite low: linos plus 2 or 3 skilled blitzers.
Neither would be affected by SE with either ruling.
4 or 5 skill teams across the board? Zons would rule? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 23:38 |
|
what i mean is that they would continue to be great minmax teams, where other currently good minmax teams would get shafted (for better or worse). Hence Amazons would become even more exclusive cheese. |
_________________
|
|
huff
Joined: Dec 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 - 01:28 |
|
The thing with SE is that they dont seem to affect those that are most often at high tv (the bashy teams) because the dont loose players as often and have hoards of cash from the trip to high TV. The teams that i think get affected the most are also the ones who need the gold the most: Elves (all). The elf teams are going to be naturally high TV because of the base player costs being so high. This causes them to reach SE very quickly (if they choose to play with majority of positionals) and could be quite detrimental when player turnover is gonna be higher at the higher TV (right?).
For all this i think SE is flawed and needs to be addressed. As to this proposed change, I dont think it will address the problem I see with it but just make it to everyteam is more impacted by SE, given the example of Nelphines team, and maybe that is the right way to go about it changing; make everyteam impacted by SE. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 - 01:39 |
|
2 points.
1. Every fix is pfffft. However there are many little fixes that put together would work better. Probably a 1 do everything fix isn't the answer, but together they maybe.
2. Sure new things may not work perfectly, and coaches that game the system may find ways to 'minmax' or game the system.
However, fine tuning the fixes will fix this or mute the impact gaming the system would have.
Personally I believe with a banhammer in one hand and a rulebook with the words I want in it in the other, gaming the system can be eradicated or laughed at as fouling in a crp environment is. I.e. it has an impact of kind, but boys will have their toys but in doesn't interfere with the mechanics. |
|
|
|
|
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
