FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 01:23

While I was always thinking that nerfing PO would account for all major problems regarding the box, there actually might be an easier, straightforward solution, without interfering with the rules at all:

Switch matchmaking by TV to matchmaking by the number of available skills (i. e. the sum of all gained additional skills, without mng-players, of course).

That would mean that rerolls, reserves, journeymen, positional players, doubles, stat-increases and FF would no longer translate to an equivalent amount of Clawpomb (or other cheesy stuff).

Instead, choices would center around the question what the proper balance of a certain roster is with regard to how much inducements you are willing to give away for those extra players, rerolls etc., so proper roster management would still be important after all. Basing games on the number of available skills should strongly encourage coaches to build rosters the way they are supposed to be (I'm referring to harvestmouse here). Incidentally, under such a system stunties would finally get reliable access to their beloved inducements too.

There's a huge "drawback" though: Would mean very bad times for minmax rookie hunters!

PainState

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 01:27

Ok here we go again.

minmax rookie hunting is way down the list of issues with the box as related to CPOMB, YES!!! I called it like it is, CPOMB.

Figuring out how to stop the spam of CPOMB at 1700+TV is the biggest issue of all.

Come back with a solution to that and then lets move on to Curing the box #3.

_________________
Comish of the:

JimmyFantastic

Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 01:35

zzzzzzz

_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!

pythrr

Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 01:36

MIRROR THREAD!

_________________

Frankenstein

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 01:37

PainState wrote:

Ok here we go again.

minmax rookie hunting is way down the list of issues with the box as related to CPOMB, YES!!! I called it like it is, CPOMB.

Figuring out how to stop the spam of CPOMB at 1700+TV is the biggest issue of all.

Come back with a solution to that and then lets move on to Curing the box #3.

Without changing official CRP-rules? I doubt that would be feasible.

I am however convinced that minmaxing is a major issue in the box which forces coaches into not particularly enjoyable, artificially lean builds.

pythrr wrote:

MIRROR THREAD!

Really? Has this been suggested before then? This system would not only pair teams of equivalent level, it would also immunise new teams from falling prey to silly 1-reroll/9-rookies+leader/2-clawpomb-legend-builds and/or similar stuff which would seem highly desirable to me. Unless ridiculous minmaxing is meant to be encouraged, that is.

JackassRampant

Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 01:53

I think this would be a step up. Even better would be some kind of formula that factors in race, age, TV, and streak. (Streak is preferable to CR as a way of factoring in coaching, especially if there is like a two-game minimum, because it doesn't ever steepen your hill to .500, just make it hard to assemble monster streaks, so the best coaches don't feel like they're being punished for success.)

_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor.

Bobs

Joined: Feb 26, 2009

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 01:58

PO can only be used for armour.

Ding

_________________
si non modo numquam pragmaticam

pythrr

Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 02:01

Frankenstein wrote:

Really? Has this been suggested before then? This system would not only pair teams of equivalent level, it would also immunise new teams from falling prey to silly 1-reroll/9-rookies+leader/2-clawpomb-legend-builds and/or similar stuff which would seem highly desirable to me. Unless ridiculous minmaxing is meant to be encouraged, that is.

Over and over and over. Whatever the merits of this (and I like aspects of it), it would reduce the matching chance, and thus the number of games; such a system has been ruled out many times before.

Also, I'm going to throw a first attempt at gaming this system at you.

A newish team of Delfs (with one skill, say dodge, on a line elf), with 11 mens vs. a 15 game old team of dorfs who have saved up cash, sacked any player that gets a skill, but have got to 15 dwarfs, all the positionals, and say - one MB on a blitzer. Does this seem fair? Any system can be gamed.

Another version.

An wood elf team with 4 skills (dodge *3 on line men, and strip ball on a WD) vs 4 CWs and 7 beast men, with a block/claw/mb/po warrior. An even match you say! Looks like smallman to me! Wouldn't such a system just encourage even more minmaxing?

_________________

Frankenstein

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 09:31

pythrr wrote:

Frankenstein wrote:

Really? Has this been suggested before then? This system would not only pair teams of equivalent level, it would also immunise new teams from falling prey to silly 1-reroll/9-rookies+leader/2-clawpomb-legend-builds and/or similar stuff which would seem highly desirable to me. Unless ridiculous minmaxing is meant to be encouraged, that is.

Over and over and over. Whatever the merits of this (and I like aspects of it), it would reduce the matching chance, and thus the number of games; such a system has been ruled out many times before.

That's simply not true as this would entirely depend upon the limits set for possible matches (if you want to set limits at all, that is, it would be possible to simply calculate matches by the lowest skill-count differences possible from the pool of applying teams.

pythrr wrote:

A newish team of Delfs (with one skill, say dodge, on a line elf), with 11 mens vs. a 15 game old team of dorfs who have saved up cash, sacked any player that gets a skill, but have got to 15 dwarfs, all the positionals, and say - one MB on a blitzer. Does this seem fair? Any system can be gamed.

If at all, it would seem sort of unfair to the Dwarf team actually, due to the inducements involved (probably a wizard and 2 babes or so). In fact, I wouldn't mind to play either team (though I certainly wouldn't field such a Dwarf side in the first place).

pythrr wrote:

[An wood elf team with 4 skills (dodge *3 on line men, and strip ball on a WD) vs 4 CWs and 7 beast men, with a block/claw/mb/po warrior. An even match you say! Looks like smallman to me! Wouldn't such a system just encourage even more minmaxing?

smallman's smallkosp currently sport 23 (!) skills at a TV of 1210k. Anyway, the match-up doesn't seem that unfair to me, I'm not even certain which team you'd consider at a huge disadvantage there. If your example implies that stacking skills is better than spreading them in general, then there'd always be the possibility to calculate skill stacks progressively.

Matching by the number of skills deliberately does not try to account for the default imbalances of rosters, it tries to pair teams of similar experience level in order to create a more league-like environment with respective builds. And the primary indicator for that are skills, which sort of constitute the very core of the game.

The system also wouldn't account for differences regarding rerolls, substitutes etc. as their values are highly subjective, while being kept in check by inducements anyway. There is a reason people rarely complain about too many substitutes, rerolls, FF, etc., on the contrary: the cheesy builds are exactly those without rerolls, substitutes etc.

That said, the proposed system would create a much less artificial environment with team builds found in actual Blood Bowl leagues instead of the awkward minmax-focused stuff Blackbox' TV-based matchmaking formula currently encourages and rewards.

Catalyst32

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 10:49

I like the proposed changes very much. It should open up CRP to be used more as intended by allowing more use of Inducements in the Box environment.

Will someone find ways to game the system if the new system is adopted? Absolutely. Somebody will find a way to "BREAK" the game under any format. But so what? The status quo environment in the Box right now is "BROKEN". At least we could change what those "breaks" in the system are to something else.

I for one would love to see more Stars and Wizards and other inducements on a semi-regular basis. As it is a single Bribe or a Babe or 2 is all I ever see except on an extremely rare occassion (and on those occassions it isn't much more than that).

Isn't most of the fun of this game the development of strategies in building teams new ways, winning games with new strategies, facing new challenges brought on by other coaches who use different races and/or strategies?
Why should anyone be arguing for keeping the Box exactly the same as it is right now? It is STALE and STAGNANT. It could be revived by shaking up the formula that creates the matches. Plus re-creating the formula for match-making does not alter the RULESET in any way which ought to please Christer and what I like to call his Prime Directive.

I think Franks idea on match-making is a great place to start. It could probably use some tweaking but of all the proposed changes I have ever read this one has potential.

Tarabaralla

Joined: Jul 24, 2010

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 10:49

It's the rulebook, we just have to accept it and hope it will get some change in the future (I mean official changes by GW). TV matchmaking is a natural consequence of TV-based rules, and it works fine in most cases.

Clawmbpo spam at high TV is unavoidable (and even if you avoid it in matchmaking, you'll get it in tourneys and you'll be less prepared for it). It's boring, but someone will always go on doing it: it's just SO simpler than building any other team. I started to dislike it heavily long ago, nevertheless I have a Chaos Dwarf team in R as reserve team for Majors because Slann and Vampire ones are slow and hard to build and quick to crash while they are tough and easy to get ready...

Clawmbpo spam at low TV is the kind of minmaxing making people complain, together with amazon rookie preying: that is more annoying, but at least it's not so efficient in the case of clawmbpo (even if I remember a build that seemed an exception, giving great winning stats to a very poor coach), it's hatred (so most of reasonable players won't build it), while amazons at least aren't focused on players removal, they're just too good under 1100 TV.

We're just a bit too nervous after 20 hours without a BB match Smile

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 11:27

Tarabaralla wrote:

It's the rulebook, we just have to accept it and hope it will get some change in the future (I mean official changes by GW). TV matchmaking is a natural consequence of TV-based rules, and it works fine in most cases.

The commissioner's word is law. We have to accept it because it is the commissioner's word. Not because it is the rules as laid down by the rule book.

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed

Calcium

Joined: Apr 08, 2007

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 11:51

YAWN ZZZZZZZZZZZ COMA

_________________

cthol

Joined: Nov 10, 2003

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 11:55

[quote="TV matchmaking is a natural consequence of TV-based rules, and it works fine in most cases.
[/quote]

Ah! No! No it's not. Isn't this the whole problem?

TV is a somewhat abstract reflection of a team's strength. It doesn't allow for the fact that some skills (Mighty Blow) are patently better than others (Very Long Legs), and it doesn't reflect the different effectiveness of having 5 skills on one guy or spread across 5 guys. Also there are clearly some positions that are hugely under / over-rated (Snotlings, anyone?)

BUT IT DOES THE JOB. It works. It's a relatively simple to calculate, robust system that gives a decent approximation of a team's strength.

But there's no reason we have to use it to schedule matches. We can (and, according to the rules, should) use it for working out inducements and spiralling expenses. We can use any other system at all for matchmaking.

(just to be clear, I am specifically talking about BlackBox here. We already use other systems of matchmaking: R uses mutual agreement, L uses e.g. a swiss system)

Arguably, using TV for matchmaking is the WORST way of doing it, since it basically rules out using inducements most of the time, and if the system used for matchmaking is also the system used for rating teams it seems open to abuse, If the Box Scheduler just randomly assigned games between available teams that might actually be better than TV matching. Scheduling by mutual agreement is obviously not going to work in box, the whole point is that it is automatic, just turn up, activate, play. So an automatic scheduler needs to use something. Random is your base line. I really like the proposals that have been suggested for matching by winning record, regardless of size. Maybe record over the last 5 games, you could allow a discount for a huge TV drop to allow for some sort of comeback game.

Allow W=200, D=100, L=0
(TV at start of last 5 games) - (TV now) is subtracted from this

So a team with a record of WWDWD that lost 300 TV over the course of that would have a score of 500

A team that had LLLDW and gained 140 TV would have 440.

A new team would have it "last five games" assumed to be draws = 500.

Tweak it a bit, but it would separate TV from scheduling.

cthol

Joined: Nov 10, 2003

Posted: Dec 13, 2013 - 11:58

As a side thought, is it possible to see the teams that have activated in previous BBox rounds? It would be nice to go through a few rounds with this system just a paper and see how the scheduling would have been different.