DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
 Posted:
Dec 03, 2014 - 13:03 |
 
|
| harvestmouse wrote: |
Well, nobody can be sure what's going on in Duke's head on this one. Winning is very important to him of course.
I think part of it is making a point. If you won't let me play elves how I wish to, so be it, I'll make everybody's environment a living hell.
|
Well, let me clear that up for you.
I enjoy playing the game. I enjoy winning. I enjoy keeping a team going long term (although I don't care about the individual players on a team).
I have played various teams, including the agile (Skaven and Wood Elf), the bashy (Dwarf and Nurgle) ad the inbetween (Norse).
Playing games with my Wood Elves has recently (since the min-max adjustment) caused me some frustration (mainly because of the huge TV differences) and so I have simply stopped playing them.
The Dwarves and Skaven were 'paused' at 250 games, and as the Skaven would likely fall into the same trap, I have no compulsion currently to play them either.
Now, I understand this isn't about me, nor would I want it to be. However, the question has been asked why a coach (me or any other) would favour a bash team over an agile team in the current environment and from my point of view it's pointed out above.
My Nurgle can handle TV differences, the have regen, they can recover and they have a stash of cash and, most importantly, no matchup that comes up caused me any real frustration. My games with them continue to be fun, albeit my target of those games remains to win.
I have recently enjoyed a nice run out with Pro Elves and am thinking about doing similar with either Slann or Underworld, but those teams would be covered under the new team safety blanket.
Now, please feel free to talk about someone else now  |
|
|
OenarLod
Joined: Jan 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2014 - 14:07 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: |
Well, let me clear that up for you...
|
+1
I didn't give up yet, and I already pointed this issue once in my blog, but I feel the same as DukeTyrion.
Taking aside tournament games, where I don't expect equal matches, in the last ten regular Box games of the VTS, I had 5 where I was an huge underdog: 2 at 200TV difference, 1 for each 250TV, 490TV and 570TV.
Now, the odd game here and there can be fun, but it can easily become an exercise in frustration if you don't want to turn to the dark side. |
_________________
Join the Human League Premiership! |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2014 - 14:34 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: |
Now, please feel free to talk about someone else now |
Shan't. Not until the Dragons return or the Cougars have 100 games.
| harvestmouse wrote: | | I think part of it is making a point. If you won't let me play elves how I wish to, so be it, I'll make everybody's environment a living hell. |
But it was already Hell. If you are going to be in Hell you may as well be a demon.
On the other hand. The Dragons don't look that fearsome as they are now but TV1200-1300 teams might not be so keen on running into e.g. 8 loners + 3 AG5s
With a cap would the WMDs be able to get a game. If not would Bill cut them down?
If he did would people whine about him min/maxing? Would they cut their teams down to avoid him.
Would other people complain about them min/maxing. Would those people...
The more people playing past 30 games the fewer big TV gaps there'll be. The more people playing past 30 games with non CPOMBers the better your chances of not drawing a CPOMBer.
But who is going to do it? |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Samaranthae
Joined: Aug 30, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2015 - 14:32 |
|
Hey guys. I'm new here and while i've read about 20 pages of this i can't say i read it all.
I just wanted to throw this out there i dont know if this is a "new" idea or an old one that has already been dismissed as foolish but:
-I like blackbox over ranked and league because its not cherrypicking or being cherrypicked.
that being said i've been feeling that both on cyanide and here mm by TV is warping the sense of what bloodbowl is. And its fundamentally incentivising the wrong mentality. That is to keep your team "tight" so that you can get a better matchup. This is making the bash vs agi thing worse as its allowing the bash teams to get nice and tight in their destructive element before having to deal with top agi teams (which are on the whole more expensive and which spiral out of control quicker or in fewer games)
So... Rather than do some crazy crazy difficult maths on christers behalf (i couldnt do that kind of metadata and algorythmns). Why isn't box just matching up opponents by no. games played rather than TV. Put an ELO in there as well or swisse it a little but essentially if it was on a games played then the following happens.
1- The beginning experience is more like a league or progression tournament format (which is imo how bloodbowl was intended for the first 5-10 games to be played)
2- coaches are encouraged to improve their roster and not to worry about spiraling TV so much (apart from worrying about giving away inducements)
3- The natural progression of high scoring teams means that they will shoot up quicker than bash teams which means that if they can get past the first hurdle they will be somewhat protected from the bash teams who will progress slower (on average)
4- it allows stunty teams or the like to "go in low" and take inducements. Which is a valid option for flings and goblins.
Now i'm sure that this would take some work, but i think its less revolutionary than rewriting the rules for PO or Claw. I think its also less work/maths than what it would currently take to "fix" the box through... whatever the alternative is. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2015 - 14:48 |
|
PO and killstack will be a problem no matter the matchmaking. You can make its effect smaller or bigger, but wont disappear from any perpetual environment. |
_________________
 |
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2015 - 15:09 |
|
If you only could activate teams in postmatch mode.
Team management would become more important than minmaxing |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2015 - 21:53 |
|
I think the more I play, the bigger the new vs. old and skill amounts make a difference than just straight up TV. Wish there was a way to break down matches by SPP selected skills (that is, don't count inherent skills like dodge for Zons or Block and Tackle for Dwarves) over baseline and team age.
I think about teams where the sheer amount of games and SPP rolls made allow for freaks that can tilt the game (Tmoila's 2 Dodges 1 Blitz is a good example) |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2015 - 22:03 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: |
I think about teams where the sheer amount of games and SPP rolls made allow for freaks that can tilt the game (Tmoila's 2 Dodges 1 Blitz is a good example) |
I find this very inetersting.
Because IMO the only way elves survive in the Box is to have 2-3 nasty uber +stat freaks.
All the other teams are in a arms race for CPOMB, POMBT and DP.
Which means the elves only chance for survival is by living with the 12 man roster with a few game breaker +stat freaks.
Which of course is why elves do generally well in Box majors because all the other teams are playing the arms race and the Elves are playing the game to just win. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2015 - 23:10 |
|
Another example of this aged teams with only a few more skills (and game breaking ones at that) than the opponent, albiet from a small sample size is my own American Ratiators II BBL. I didnt intentionally min max this team, rather, Nuffle did it for me. But having a OTTD threat against sub 1100 TV teams is egregious. Having a OTTD threat against 1000 TV rookie teams is grotesque. |
|
|
DrPoods
Joined: Nov 14, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2015 - 23:45 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Another example of this aged teams with only a few more skills (and game breaking ones at that) than the opponent, albiet from a small sample size is my own American Ratiators II BBL. I didnt intentionally min max this team, rather, Nuffle did it for me. But having a OTTD threat against sub 1100 TV teams is egregious. Having a OTTD threat against 1000 TV rookie teams is grotesque. |
Heh heh. I remember playing them mate. I recall you apologising for the OTT rat before we even exchanged hellos!
 |
_________________
"Gallifrey falls no more"
Do your part! Join the Adoption Agency NOW! |
|
Samaranthae
Joined: Aug 30, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2015 - 07:06 |
|
So the reason the "only chance for elves to survive" is because at every point they're playing against teams with many more games under their belts.
A starting elf team meets a starting dwarf roster and 2 times out of 3 its going to win 3-0, buy an apothecary and gets 2 skills. Which means game 2 that wood elf is 110 TV
Now its playing a dwarf team that is 110 TV. That Dwarf team has taken 4 games to get to 110 TV and has its starting list +5 skills. And so it goes for games 2-6 for an elf team.
Now after 10 games both the elves and the bash teams are going to be more advanced but the woodies should always be above the bash team with the same number of games under their belt. It means that bar bribes, wizards and chainsaws the bash team has a limited number of skills. If they go straight down the clawpomb route then:
a- the claw is wasted on av7
b- The straight clawpomb should find itself lacking in tackle, strip, jugger or grab to negate the blodge, sidestep, fend that the woodies can build. And remember the woodies can build it quicker because if theyre scoring 3-4 td's a game theyre milking points. So if the bash team was really trying to WIN their games they would have to make more interesting choices about their skill selections.
This brings me to my second major problem with league ranked and the box here. There is no incentive to win. Its nice to win, but if you lose there is no real consequence? its not like a league so for the first 100 games or so the main thing is getting the SPP's on the players you want and avoiding them on the lineman. This is counter... well its counter to what i like in blood bowl. I always want to be trying to win and feel that should be the object of the game.
Which bring me to Part 2 of my suggestion. Because this isnt about fixing blackbox.
this is about having another box. A better box.
Campaign box
you have to imagine that this is a simulated league or pretend solo play feature. And the game is giving you a story mode. Start off with a linear campaign:
Championship 1.
Championship 2.
Championship 3.
Lets say for the sake of argument that each championship is 6 games long. So it mm's you against anyone else in Championship 1 (maybe within 2 games played for the first one) you win and you get 3 points, you lose you get 0 and 1 for a draw... like a league. Now after you've played 6 games if you score is above X then it puts you in a "semi final" and if you win that it puts you in a "final" and if you win you get the trophy next to your team icon.
Now the thing here is that it doesnt matter if your opponent is aware that your on your semi final? it's just mm'd you with an opponent. Win this game to proceed lose and taste the humiliation. Its like the single player campaign that cyanide had except instead of playing against a really crap computer your opponent is a randomly selected person.
So going back to the linear campaign. Once you finish championship 1 you go to championship 2 and are matched up against people from that. then you have 2 options:
A- you can have cool rewards for winning each championship. It can be a badge on your team or it can be a cash injection or a cool skill or item Either way if its something that people WANT their team to have then it makes winning their games more important than just skilling their players.
B-At some point you make the better championships require that you've won previous tournaments or accrued a certain amount of trophies or points etc.etc. This might require the campaign to break into trees or go parallel at times but it would essentially seperate the teams that can win games into a premiere league and leave teams that cannot cut it in a sort of holding "conference"
A combination of both of these would work with cool incentive for winning the premiere titles and status for being able to do so. But the main thing is to incentivise WINNING rather than just skilling players.
Enough for now. If i havent been clear or if anyone wants further explanation just ask i'll go into another rant  |
|
|
DrPoods
Joined: Nov 14, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2015 - 07:13 |
|
Rant all menz! |
_________________
"Gallifrey falls no more"
Do your part! Join the Adoption Agency NOW! |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2015 - 07:30 |
|
How is winning in itself not sufficient validation for playing well? |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2015 - 07:40 |
|
Also: "...for the first 100 games or so the main thing is getting the SPP's on the players you want and avoiding them on the lineman" ignores the fact that a large majority of Box teams play less than 10 games. The 100+ game teams are not the norm, and so while they should be allowed for, they should not be used as the sole basis for deciding the future of the division. This proposal seems to be based largely on anecdotal perception/bias, rather than any real statistics or data which could back it up. |
_________________
 Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
Samaranthae
Joined: Aug 30, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 21, 2015 - 07:46 |
|
It may be enough for you but i think we have to acknowledge that at least part of our player base are either willing to lose some games at first in order to get their team to the point where they can achieve their goal. Or that their goal isnt to win its to kill other teams best players. If their satisfaction isnt affected by the scoreline then winning is not in itself sufficient validation for playing well. I think we cannot assume that everyone works on the same motivation. But is it really ok if people are just there to ruin the fun for others?
Now this may be a significant minority but i think its exacerbating the clawpomb situation. Then it rolls on because people feel unsafe playing teams which can't compete, so they bring their own clawpomb and lo it gets out of hand/old real quick.
If the "premiere leagues" actually require you to have trophies or at least achieve say the finals in some of the earlier games then the goal is really set. Try and win your games. Teams that are unable to do so may find themselves in leagues filled with other teams that weren't able to do so or may just not be able to find opponents (i can see people starting new teams if they dont get the "badges they want"). This COULD lead to big bash teams just picking on the "not so good players" who are also stuck in the conferences. But this already happens in league ranked and in the box and the Bash teams that make it to the premiere leagues would have proven some kind of prowess at scoring TD's
If this seems like an unfair barrier to getting to stomp elves. Remember this is simulating a single player experience, with a difficulty setting that is both responsive, scaled and to a degree aleotoric (the advantages of pvp opponents). In single player games if you dont finish the level then you cant play the next level. This is no different, it just has a narrative accompanying the pass/failure rate.
yeah i dont do/have the stats. I don't know what it would take to massage to a workable solution. But wouldnt it be better than the box we have? Christer is a SMART cookie if he did this it would be backed up by an ELO and other such matchmaking devices its just that the FIRST priority wouldnt be TV it would be generally around the number of games played, as divided by the championships. I trust that he could do this SO much better than the current BOX without changing the rules of the game as they stand. |
Last edited by Samaranthae on %b %21, %2015 - %08:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
| |
Roster Tiers
Search
