The_Murker
Joined: Jan 30, 2011
|
 Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 14:15 |
 
|
What stats? The stats that say people activate in box? People would activate if it were just flings, gobos, and underworld. MORE people would activate in box if it were just gobos, flings and underworld! That's the £5 donation I'll wager. |
_________________
Join the wait-list. Watch the action. Leave the Empire. Come to Bretonnia! |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 14:53 |
|
Lmao this is brilliant. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 15:06 |
|
Just a short example of what a skill-count based system would accomplish:
smallman's smallkosp, who have 11 players with an overall 23 (!) skills and no rerolls at a TV of 1210k (sic!) would no longer be paired against teams with just 2-3 games under their belt but would have to face teams such as RandomOracle's Chuck Versus Blood Bowl (11 players with 23 skills, 3 rerolls, TV 1710k).
Seems pretty reasonable to me. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 15:08 |
|
I'm not sure RO would like it lol. This looks like it would punish old teams even more. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 15:16 |
|
Without looking at the 'STATS' as so many of you like to do, I would think that the popularity of clawPOMB is largely due to the increased BLOOD...you know, as in BLOOD BOWL? I sometimes wonder if a lot of you fools lose track of what we are actually playing here..... |
_________________
 |
|
PandaPower
Joined: Aug 17, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 15:20 |
|
I thought we were playing fantasy football nowadays?  |
|
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 15:27 |
|
A lot of coaches here want to play their own personal 'lose no players' version of BB  |
_________________
|
|
mrbibitte3
Joined: Mar 28, 2013
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 15:31 |
|
|
bigGuy
Joined: Sep 21, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 15:35 |
|
| Frankenstein wrote: | Just a short example of what a skill-count based system would accomplish:
smallman's smallkosp, who have 11 players with an overall 23 (!) skills and no rerolls at a TV of 1210k (sic!) would no longer be paired against teams with just 2-3 games under their belt but would have to face teams such as RandomOracle's Chuck Versus Blood Bowl (11 players with 23 skills, 3 rerolls, TV 1710k).
Seems pretty reasonable to me. |
Last smallkosp game was vs 4 games old DE team, and they lost 2-0 (killed 1 elf in process)... So why exactly this match was bad? |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 15:40 |
|
And last Chuck game they lost 2-0 to Khemri and got beaten up.
The only conclusion we can draw is that clawpomb is underpowered! |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
bigGuy
Joined: Sep 21, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 15:48 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | And last Chuck game they lost 2-0 to Khemri and got beaten up.
The only conclusion we can draw is that clawpomb is underpowered! |
Yay, it was me!
Probably because Chuck vs BB has only one clawpomber |
|
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 16:54 |
|
Unnerf ClawPOMB2014! |
_________________
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 17:14 |
|
It's odd to me that no one is suggesting to take cpomb away here, just changing the way matches get scheduled to remove one of the more stupid exploits available to douchers.
And yet...
the lame meme crowd is all up in arms about it.
I have no idea why, it doesn't affect your ability to spam cpomb as much as you want and act like a retard while doing it. All it does is remove some of the ease with which the box min/max low TV pickers can practice their perversion. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 17:20 |
|
| Frankenstein wrote: | Just a short example of what a skill-count based system would accomplish:
smallman's smallkosp, who have 11 players with an overall 23 (!) skills and no rerolls at a TV of 1210k (sic!) would no longer be paired against teams with just 2-3 games under their belt but would have to face teams such as RandomOracle's Chuck Versus Blood Bowl (11 players with 23 skills, 3 rerolls, TV 1710k).
Seems pretty reasonable to me. |
And what would smallman do with his team if this new system were ever put in place? He'd trim them down to 800 TV and 5 skills. Then he would have a clawpomb stack AND 200 TV of inducements vs newish teams with 5 (or so) skills (as it would never be a like for like skill number match - it would have to be a range).
My point here is that any system will be gamed. |
_________________
 |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2013 - 17:41 |
|
Hmmmm… rather than trying to come up with a new metric, why not pair a new existing metric in with TV? Say, add the highest player rank x20k and the sum* of the next four x5k, or something like that.
Keeping our purpose clear, I think the main problem with CRP is the fact that TV for stacking improvements is additive, while on the pitch there's a force multiplier, and the thing that keeps me out of Box is the fact that straight-TV matching exacerbates this. That's what I'm motivated to address, because that's what would get me in.
* Since this is a formula and you don't need someone to sit there and do the math, these can be weighted in lots of different ways. You'd reduce perversity by making the relationship exponential, like 10k x the square root of the sum of (rank+1)^2 for the 2nd to 5th highest ranked players. You could replace the 10k in that formula with a variable, and reduce the potential for gaming even further. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
|
|
145 League and Tourn...
Search
