SzieberthAdam
Joined: Aug 31, 2008
|
 Posted:
Aug 29, 2018 - 21:27 |
 
|
I understand if you want to stick to the "gladiatorial purity" of the BB Trophy. My point was to encourage people to play all the 200 matches even it the chance for the top spot is gone halfway. My first two points (icon/item awards) might be enough for that. |
_________________
   |
|
kummo
Joined: Mar 29, 2016
|
| Posted:
Aug 29, 2018 - 21:56 |
|
| Sp00keh wrote: | | Because, if you can swap out a team then it gives advantage to coach who can play 240 games Vs coach who can 'only' play 200 games |
I feel like if there was way to replace a team, the record of the last team would still stick (for example if someones team bust at game 8, the next 32 games with 2nd team of same race count towards box trophy run).
So it would still be 200 games.
This still has problems as some teams perform better at low tv and with box protection. Amazons for example would love to lose 1 points at 20 game-spot to get another amazon team to get decent record with - to avoid tackle and other killskills teams usually have at the tv 20 game old team usually meets. |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 29, 2018 - 22:56 |
|
It probably should be added to the tournament calendar page if possible
Actually
Why not have seasons that end frequently, (4 months? 6 months?)
And if you didn't finish, you can optionally roll the squad into the next season to carry it on?
Your deadline doesn't have to be my deadline
If you complete it every season, good for you more chances to win
If you play slowly, you are still involved- you get the choice to carry on if you're enjoying your teams or reset and start again if you prefer
Leaderboard probably then should be sorted by points-per-game |
|
|
DrDeath
Joined: Mar 27, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2018 - 00:14 |
|
Hope this gets renewed with fewer games required. I've followed it with interest from the start but couldn't enter sadly - with a busy job and young family I knew for sure I'd never get anywhere near 200 games.
If some folks have the time and like a marathon season, I guess it could even be split in two - have say a Trophy with 200 games, and a Shield with 100? Horses for courses! |
|
|
Strider84
Joined: Jun 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2018 - 01:00 |
|
I'd keep it running for a whole year, but still reduce the amount of games. I would suggest 4 times 30 games or 3 times 40 games. 2 games a week are more possible then 3-4. especially if you still want to play in tournaments and leagues.
Restarting is for noobs. you can pick teams who can work better with inducements if you want some insurance, but that's metagame. with journeymen almost any team can recover.
As for the tiering, I still like to take the win% of each race in their first 30 or 40 games in the box as guidance and then maybe tier it accordingly. |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
Lots of reading and talking to people later and this is my current thinking for season 2:
- 5 teams
- First 30 games count
- 12 months to play, perhaps shifting this down to 11 months at a later season (to prevent drift)
- 1.0 bonus points racial lead
- 1.0 bonus points for every 10 completed games per team (ie, max +15 points for the squad)
- Elevating the trophy to FUMBBL Major status with a potion as the preliminary prize.
- Some points shifts: Slann 2->1; Norse 3->2; Potentially Renegades and Nurgle 3->2 (although I'm not sure I want to encourage more bashy teams).
This is by no means final, but I thought I'd let you know what I'm thinking currently. I still like to hear feedback from you guys.
For the record, I am considering the trophy to be designed for people who can play a lot and don't want to trivialize the number of games. The reduction from 40 to 30 games per team is about as far as I want to go without some structural change (like the progressive number of teams idea from my previous post that is not part of the current suggestion). This makes it 150 matches total.
There are some other potential points changes that could be done that I didn't include on purpose. For example, Amazons could be moved from 3->2, but I'm worried that they would completely dominate the 2 point tier if that was done.
Team replacement is a tough question. It's rough for people to lose lots of players early on for a team, but at the same time replacing teams could be abused to get a good stream early on, or to simply minmax playing around the rookie level which benefits some races very strongly.
Either way, keep posting your thoughts and ideas  |
|
|
fxiii
Joined: Oct 30, 2012
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2018 - 11:48 |
|
for team replacement, i'm really against: https://fumbbl.com/p/match?id=3943716 my first UW game 6 players crushed but finally a long rebuild (cost me 4-5 points) and in the end a good record !! ballz matterz !!!
it's really a part of the interest of the trophy start too i think |
|
|
Rawlf
Joined: Jul 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2018 - 11:53 |
|
I don't really understand the 10 games bonus. The top performers will definitly all be finishers anyway. This is just a pick-up bonus with no relevance?
Also I don't like giving it major status. I'd rather see it as a minor, along the other stuff with the weird rules (XFL, RRR, TW capped tournies). It just doen't feel like a major to me, and surely much less so than the Lustrian Challange or even the Black Cup which were cut because there were too many majors.
Team replacement should definitely stay out.
All just my opinion of course, so feel free to ignore. |
|
|
datom
Joined: Mar 22, 2017
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2018 - 12:40 |
|
I think Adam's data's great, but 'being played/picked a lot' shouldn't necessarily be confused with 'tier level'. We should note that Flings come close to outperforming Woodies and Orcs.
There's a causation problem because tiers are different sizes and there is a limit on 3pt choices - only two possible builds had more 3pt choices than 2pt choices, and there were many more 3pt teams, so the question isn't is Norse or Pact better than Humans, it's is Norse or Pact better than another tier 1 choice. Moreover, tiers are different sizes - hence why some teams are chosen less, and why teams seem to punch above their weight in certain tiers. If people choose dark elves more than woodies, if we drop woodies to tier 2, simply more people take them, less people take pro elves. And so on, and so on.
Humans and Helves did well, conversely, because great coaches who played 200 games were likely to pick them to put together a squad.
Drop Tier 1 to Tier 2 and I'd reckon next year we'll be looking at a table with that team at the top of it. Not saying that's a bad thing. Indeed, it could be by design. But it will squeeze some of those tier 2 choices, and I'm not sure a Box with more pact/nurgle rather than high elves/humans is exactly the intention. |
_________________
 |
|
Strider84
Joined: Jun 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2018 - 13:18 |
|
| Rawlf wrote: | I don't really understand the 10 games bonus. The top performers will definitly all be finishers anyway. This is just a pick-up bonus with no relevance?
Also I don't like giving it major status. I'd rather see it as a minor, along the other stuff with the weird rules (XFL, RRR, TW capped tournies). It just doen't feel like a major to me, and surely much less so than the Lustrian Challange or even the Black Cup which were cut because there were too many majors.
Team replacement should definitely stay out.
All just my opinion of course, so feel free to ignore. |
Agree on the 10 games bonus. Rather see more points for the racial leads. I think its fun to fight for the racial leads, even if you only play 2 of your 5 teams for example.
As for Major status I think this is fine if you invest 150 games its probably more than you need to farm up 1-2 competitive teams for majors and play them. Also might increase participation imo.
Of course you can still use your box trophy team to win a major😉 |
|
|
happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2018 - 13:27 |
|
| Christer wrote: |
- 5 teams
- First 30 games count
- 12 months to play, perhaps shifting this down to 11 months at a later season (to prevent drift)
- Elevating the trophy to FUMBBL Major status with a potion as the preliminary prize.
|
I'm all for those four. The next three I am some feedback for.
| Christer wrote: |
- 1.0 bonus points racial lead
|
Reducing the number of games to 30 seems to be a good compromise to encourage a more reasonable timeline and boost participation, but it also means there is even more luck involved in coming up with the racial leaders (smaller sample size). I would much prefer to see no points at all for racial leads. Bragging rights are still pretty cool, and maybe a bonus MVP or something could be given out for racial leaders if that wasn't enough. I think it would be unfortunate to see a neck-and-neck race next season get determined by one coach with a slightly better win rate but the other managing to snag 3 racial leads because of the way the cards fell. That said, it's not a huge problem either way - I just think with the amount of time invested in this event we should do everything possible to prevent shenanigans from determining the winner.
That said, the metagame for "which race titles could I bring down" is interesting, so maybe there is something worth having there, I don't know.
| Christer wrote: |
- 1.0 bonus points for every 10 completed games per team (ie, max +15 points for the squad)
|
I don't see the value here. It won't change any positions for anyone who completes all 150 games. It will change some other scores lower down for folks who didn't complete the challenge. Do the folks who didn't complete the challenge care that much about their scores?
| Christer wrote: |
- Some points shifts: Slann 2->1; Norse 3->2; Potentially Renegades and Nurgle 3->2 (although I'm not sure I want to encourage more bashy teams).
|
The single biggest problem with the tiers, IMO, is that there is a pretty strong incentive to play the 2 point races and avoid the 0 point races. The suggested changes give people more ways to play without taking stunties. For example, I would expect to see a bunch of squads of two 3 point teams and three 1 point teams. And a bunch more of four 2 point teams (including a bunch of Norse) and one 1 point team. This is not necessarily a bad thing - because it means a lot of people playing a lot of games in the box with races that are not the usual favorites - so overall this is still great for the box. However, I think slightly more emphasis on picking stunty teams would be ideal, from my perspective.
What about considering the above changes, but also making the 0 point teams be worth -1 point? Then you could put a squad of one -1, two 2s, and two 3s out there. That gives quite a wide range of races and I bet a bunch of people would go for it. You could also choose two -1s and three 3s and go for some "unused points" bonus and that kind of thing. |
_________________
Come join us in #metabox, the Discord channel for HLP, ARR, and E.L.F. in the box!
 |
|
kummo
Joined: Mar 29, 2016
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2018 - 14:17 |
|
| happygrue wrote: |
The single biggest problem with the tiers, IMO, is that there is a pretty strong incentive to play the 2 point races and avoid the 0 point races.
--
making the 0 point teams be worth -1 point? Then you could put a squad of one -1, two 2s, and two 3s out there. That gives quite a wide range of races and I bet a bunch of people would go for it. You could also choose two -1s and three 3s and go for some "unused points" bonus and that kind of thing. |
I like idea of -1 points. Gives so much more worth to pick stunty since now instead of upgrading from 1 to 2 for example you could upgrade from 1 to 3. Which in my eyes can possibly be worth it (depends on coach and his preferences and habits).
Current rules have limit of 2 x 3 point teams max (so 3,3,3,0,0 wasn't possible) and i personally like that since it forces coach to pick at least one 2 or 1 point team (unless one goes with 3,3,0,0,0... but that would be crazy). Which in my eyes provides variety without being too limiting.
Having -1 somewhere there would allow more squadcombos like 3,3,2,2,-1 which in current ruleset wasn't possible.
Then again if we get more 2 and 1 point teams for next season then maybe the 3,3,3,-1,-1 isn't that bad since we do get variety anyways.
(In short i'm totally for buffing stuntymeta and if we get more 2 and 1 point teams in the pool, then i'd also allow 3x 3-point teams to be available, if pool size is really similar how it is now i am voting to limit only two times 3-point teams then) |
|
|
Gartch
Joined: Sep 07, 2012
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2018 - 14:41 |
|
Hi everybody!
Thank to Christer for everything made for the Trophy.
My personal and subjective point of view:
For me the goal is to attract people in Black Box, to have more peoples playing in Black Box.
And I think the less Chaos Chosen and Nurgle in Black Box, the more attractive it is to coaches USUALLY not playing in Black Box (for example usually playing in Ranked or in League unscheduled matchs with SL teams).
So I would not decrease the cost of these 2 rosters, actually I would even make them more expensive (4 points?). |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
I'm far too stupid for minus numbers. The 0 point cost means free stunty teams, surely that is enough? If they really need a bump give them racial lead bonus.
Slann dropping to 1 point seems sensible.
Norse to 2 points gets a shrug. Seems Ok.
Chaos Renegades and Nurgle to 2 points gets less scary an idea at 30 games. But do we really need more of either? I thought the Trophy was more about underplayed races than under performing. Are we really deluged with Wood Elves? and knee deep In Lizzard People? |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Verminardo
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2018 - 14:51 |
|
Shush, nobody wants more Lizard People, they are OP.  |
|
|
|
|
| |
All Star Bowl!
Search
