FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Christer

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 17:00

FUMBBL Staff

MattDakka wrote:

A simple workaround could be introducing the requirement of activating a team lower than 1800 or so for each team with TV 2000+.
Not complaining, just trying to providing constructive feedback, please don't get me wrong.

This is not constructive, and implies I never considered this simple and obvious workaround.

It's not simple. It's not going to work. If you consider the effects beyond the immediate effect, you'll see how it once again encourages people to minmax low TV teams, which is a real and significant problem. I'll let you work out why this is the case because honestly, I'm tired of explaining why the scheduler works as it does every time someone has a "simple fix" for it.

SzieberthAdam

Joined: Aug 31, 2008

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 17:00

What is unfair in developing a single team? Forcibly activate another low TV one? Come on! I made my norse to 2500 in less than 30 matches, recently a bit bashed and now at 2200+. My third rookie is waiting for a RRR. So I should create another team and if that also reach 2000+ then the next one? Bad idea. It seems that many opponents I met with the Clinic wants me to play with another team but that. As I said, I can rather wait days for the TV 2200+ chaos team patiently instead of wasting my time with a dummy one.

_________________

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 18:00

SzieberthAdam wrote:

What is unfair in developing a single team? Forcibly activate another low TV one? Come on! I made my norse to 2500 in less than 30 matches, recently a bit bashed and now at 2200+. My third rookie is waiting for a RRR. So I should create another team and if that also reach 2000+ then the next one? Bad idea. It seems that many opponents I met with the Clinic wants me to play with another team but that. As I said, I can rather wait days for the TV 2200+ chaos team patiently instead of wasting my time with a dummy one.

This happened to two of my dorf teams. I had my Puget Sound Pounders BBL get really big, relatively quickly and decided not to play them as much because I was kinda crappy with them and had other teams I wanted to play.

And then I created a new dorf team, Nuffle's Bartenders, and they too ballooned up very quickly. The idea that I should be creating a new dorf team, every 30 games or so, or manage my TV meticulously to stay in a certain range...when both teams are being played in the goal of having a fun team for tournaments...I agree with you man - Cmon!

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 18:15

Developing a single team in TV-matched environment means increasing chances of unfair match-ups and this is against the idea of TV-matchmaking itself, if you want to develop a single team you can do it in Ranked or League without forcing your opponent to be bored to hell facing a super high TV team.
If the point of the scheduler is just arranging games, instead, then let's throw to the wind the TV matching criteria and let's play totally random match-ups without waiting for 15 minutes just to find a bad match-up anyway.
Would this increase the volume of games played and make people happy? I think not, it seems a negative thing to avoid.
Logic suggests that a TV matchmaking division should arrange as close TV as possible
match-ups.
Of course a perfect finely tuned match-up is hard to schedule given the low population, but this should not be an excuse to play whatever match, no matter how silly is, the scheduler throws at you, hence the idea of the TV gap cap or multiple teams activation.
Really developing a team above TV 2000 would be impossible, if you had to activate another team (not 10 teams, just another team) lower than 1800?
Your freedom to develop your team ends where your opponent's freedom to play a fair match starts (especially considering the Box is a TV-matchmaking division, not the "develop & pimp your team" division).
Anyway, a thing is sure: the spirit of the current scheduler perfectly fits the "shit happens" motto of FUMBBL.

Arktoris

Joined: Feb 16, 2004

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 18:21

I thought the whole purpose of Black Box was to accept *any* opposition team, no matter how "unfair" you might perceive it.

For those that don't want to play under these conditions, my "simple fix" is play Ranked division. You can filter out lopsided matches.

_________________
Hail to Manowar! The latest charioteer to DIE for bloodbowl! - Slain, by Ghor Oggaz

bghandras

Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 18:33

I wrote the following sentence before this thread. But i think it fits here well, and worth repeating:

'bghandrasLast Wednesday at 4:54 PM
i can hear some 'whispers' that blackbox is a novel idea, but sometimes it would be more 'fair' with a little favoritism. (insert any type of bias here)'

_________________

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 18:36

MattDakka wrote:

Developing a single team in TV-matched environment means increasing chances of unfair match-ups and this is against the idea of TV-matchmaking itself, if you want to develop a single team you can do it in Ranked or League without forcing your opponent to be bored to hell facing a super high TV team.
If the point of the scheduler is just arranging games, instead, then let's throw to the wind the TV matching criteria and let's play totally random match-ups without waiting for 15 minutes just to find a bad match-up anyway.
Would this increase the volume of games played and make people happy? I think not, it seems a negative thing to avoid.
Logic suggests that a TV matchmaking division should arrange as close TV as possible
match-ups.
Of course a perfect finely tuned match-up is hard to schedule given the low population, but this should not be an excuse to play whatever match, no matter how silly is, the scheduler throws at you, hence the idea of the TV gap cap or multiple teams activation.
Really developing a team above TV 2000 would be impossible, if you had to activate another team (not 10 teams, just another team) lower than 1800?
Your freedom to develop your team ends where your opponent's freedom to play a fair match starts (especially considering the Box is a TV-matchmaking division, not the "develop & pimp your team" division).
Anyway, a thing is sure: the spirit of the current scheduler perfectly fits the "shit happens" motto of FUMBBL.

You min max your thoughts to the detriment of their usefulness.

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 18:38

Arktoris wrote:

I thought the whole purpose of Black Box was to accept *any* opposition team, no matter how "unfair" you might perceive it.

For those that don't want to play under these conditions, my "simple fix" is play Ranked division. You can filter out lopsided matches.

I'm of the opinion now that Box is to stress test your team builds and your adaptability to roster flux against whatever is thrown at you. Some of us really don't trust ourselves to play Ranked in a non cynical way.

Kzarik

Joined: Sep 25, 2016

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 19:05

mrt1212 wrote:

Arktoris wrote:

I thought the whole purpose of Black Box was to accept *any* opposition team, no matter how "unfair" you might perceive it.

For those that don't want to play under these conditions, my "simple fix" is play Ranked division. You can filter out lopsided matches.

I'm of the opinion now that Box is to stress test your team builds and your adaptability to roster flux against whatever is thrown at you. Some of us really don't trust ourselves to play Ranked in a non cynical way.

And some of us are better at taking what comes than we are at picking ranked opponents.

Rbthma

Joined: Jan 14, 2009

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 19:09

I'm just going to throw my hat into the ring here and remind everyone that a thread of this exact nature (by smallman unless I'm horribly mistaken) is what propelled a new coach to suggest the idea for the Black Box Trophy because they were tired of all the nonconstructive whining...so have at 'er.

The Box and Ranked and FUMBBL is what coaches bring to it I guess? Smile

also smallman, no pie poll option?

Christer

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 19:16

FUMBBL Staff

MattDakka wrote:

Logic suggests that a TV matchmaking division should arrange as close TV as possible match-ups.

Well, I'll grant you that if that was the goal of blackbox, then yes. However, that doesn't apply to Blackbox because there is an enormous difference between someone grooming a 1200 TV team over 50+ matches and someone who just reached TV 1200 after 4 games.

Strict TV matchmaking is very bad, except for those who think it's fun to prey on newcomers to the site and the game. People who think that "as long as I have fun, it's perfect" with absolutely zero regard of the other person. People who sit on their high horse saying "you need to change so I can have more fun" while at the same time acting in a way that drives people away from the environment.

I am defending people's right to play the game the way they want, but will do (and have done) what I can to protect people from predatory behaviour.

It's honestly infuriating to see threads like this frequented by a bunch of people who behave like little children; enjoying bullying other people with their minmaxed little teams and expect me to change the system to make their way of playing easier and better.

People have a right to minmax, and I have a right to build the environment in a way that I see fit; a way where I feel that people don't run into these minmaxed teams; a way that penalizes minmaxing behaviour.

Hypocritical whining about how your pixels were hurt when you've spent months minmaxing and effectively griefing people "because that's how the format works" or whatever will have absolutely zero impact on me and will absolutely not make me want to change how things are designed.

If you're someone who believes in karma, I'd consider this type of thing a perfect example.

Now let me respond to the direct title of the thread: "Box scheduler badly needs an overhaul".

No it doesn't. It works exactly as I want it to and is about as perfect as I believe it could be made. I see absolutely zero reason to change the formula, and I have a feeling I have spent more hours thinking about the problem than most of you, doing my best to remove bias of wanting my own teams to succeed in the division.

Can we conclude this thread now please? This is all old stuff being rehashed over and over again, and I don't know how to be more clear than "It's not going to change".

Kzarik

Joined: Sep 25, 2016

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 19:20

bghandras wrote:

I wrote the following sentence before this thread. But i think it fits here well, and worth repeating:

'bghandrasLast Wednesday at 4:54 PM
i can hear some 'whispers' that blackbox is a novel idea, but sometimes it would be more 'fair' with a little favoritism. (insert any type of bias here)'

Christer should adapt the following from footballoutsiders.com for his use. In fact, I've given it a go for him:

To save people some time, please use the following format for all complaints:

<subjective problem> is clearly happening <too often/too infrequently> because <reason unrelated to Black Box Scheduler>. <subjective change> is way better than this. <unrelated idea-supporting or Black Box Scheduler-denigrating comment, preferably with poor spelling and/or chat-acceptable spelling>

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 19:41

Christer wrote:

MattDakka wrote:

Logic suggests that a TV matchmaking division should arrange as close TV as possible match-ups.

Well, I'll grant you that if that was the goal of blackbox, then yes. However, that doesn't apply to Blackbox because there is an enormous difference between someone grooming a 1200 TV team over 50+ matches and someone who just reached TV 1200 after 4 games.

Strict TV matchmaking is very bad, except for those who think it's fun to prey on newcomers to the site and the game. People who think that "as long as I have fun, it's perfect" with absolutely zero regard of the other person. People who sit on their high horse saying "you need to change so I can have more fun" while at the same time acting in a way that drives people away from the environment.

I am defending people's right to play the game the way they want, but will do (and have done) what I can to protect people from predatory behaviour.

It's honestly infuriating to see threads like this frequented by a bunch of people who behave like little children; enjoying bullying other people with their minmaxed little teams and expect me to change the system to make their way of playing easier and better.

People have a right to minmax, and I have a right to build the environment in a way that I see fit; a way where I feel that people don't run into these minmaxed teams; a way that penalizes minmaxing behaviour.

Hypocritical whining about how your pixels were hurt when you've spent months minmaxing and effectively griefing people "because that's how the format works" or whatever will have absolutely zero impact on me and will absolutely not make me want to change how things are designed.

If you're someone who believes in karma, I'd consider this type of thing a perfect example.

When did I minmax? Please show me a minmaxed team or show me if I minmaxed during cpomb era.
I remember well, instead, being the victim of many minmaxed Chaos Pact, Chaos Dwarfs, and maxmaxed Chaos and Nurgle teams.
I really don't think I deserve to be treated like a hypocrite minmaxer when I was one of the few coaches not exploiting the formula with minmaxed teams.
And by the way, there are many coaches who don't minmax but cycle strong low TV teams.
This is not minmax, but arguably an exploit nonetheless.
Personally I don't cycle teams, I don't (and didn't) minmax, and I don't monoactivate.
I'm a good example of a guy who walks like he talks.
And, to be back on topic, if you want to protect people from predatory behaviour, well, monoactivating a super high TV team is a predatory behaviour towards people not having high enough teams (and this doesn't mean they are minmaxers, they could have some MNGs and recovering from a beating).

LucaAnt

Joined: Apr 24, 2006

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 20:06

We all genuinely thought you were leaving Matt. The concession button isn't fixed yet xD

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: Feb 08, 2019 - 20:09

If I found again that leaver I would not start the game.