Uber
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
 Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 18:39 |
 
|
I don't see any arguments that challenge what Christer has said on page 36, even if he was relating his arguments to CR based matching. The fact remains that TV gaps are universally hated. If you remove TV as main factor for the scheduler, you end up creating more and more wide gap matchups that people hate.
The other point is that there aren't that many teams entering each draw and while diverging from TV could work on a larger scale, FUMBBL simply doesn't have the volume to accomodate that.
You have to accept that the blackbox scheduler will always be TV based, that is the core principle behind it. What you guys are proposing is something entirely different and I'm all for having more options to schedule games. |
_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict. |
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 18:59 |
|
people may hate it; in bb2020, with spp hoarding, you'll be able to abuse tv matching, and move away from [the apparent] intended direction of bb2020. In particular it appears you are intended to have to make the choice of 'save spp and play down tv against your next opponent' or 'spend your spp and possibly lose the player in the redraft'. Why should we cater to that hatred given the intention of the ruleset, regardless of whether people hate it?
People may hate other things too (for instance, mighty blow piling on claw players in crp), but we didn't cater to that, and people still played in the box a lot despite that hatred. |
|
|
Medon
Joined: Jan 28, 2015
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 19:05 |
|
TV gaps though, are mostly hated for 'rookie teams' in their first season. It is not fun to play against 2000 TV elves if you don't yet have enough tackle in your team yet. It is not fun to play against 2000TV dwarves if you don't have enough guard yourself yet.
However, I must say, from my own experience in scheduled leagues like OBBA, WIL, CIBBL: "I LOVE TV GAPS!" Inducements are wonderfully fun. Inducing bribes and dirty players, fouling away those juicy targets in high TV teams, inducing nice start players of legend. Playing heavily up in TV is a wonderful experience and I hope more people will start to like it when they try it out 
I'm okay with the TV based scheduler as it is now as well - But a purely random scheduler with the exception of rookie protection for teams in their season 1 would even be more fun and more closer to actual league play, I think |
|
|
ph0enyx13
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 19:36 |
|
| ClayInfinity wrote: | Other than the issue you dont know your next opponent, a "game number matching" process will best reflect the rules.
Perhaps if you can nominate to enter the scheduler "unreadied" you could add skills via cashing in SPP to your team in the pre-match phase?
Having said that, other than mass taking Tackle vs an Amazon opponent or mass taking say Claw vs a Dwarf team, there wouldnt be too many exploits here. And really, would you then spend all your SPP mid season to win that one game and then perhaps lament some other skills in the match following? |
The way the rules are written, all post match sequence things like spending spp and buying/retiring players should be done immediately at the completion of a match and people metagaming by waiting to see who they are up against breaks the rules as written in the rulebook. Granted the rulebook assumes set match fixtures where you know all your opponents in the order you will play them at the start of the season. |
|
|
ClayInfinity
Joined: Aug 15, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 19:49 |
|
| Uber wrote: | The fact remains that TV gaps are universally hated. If you remove TV as main factor for the scheduler, you end up creating more and more wide gap matchups that people hate.
|
Personally I think you're way off the mark re being "universally hated". I personally enjoy the inducements in BB greatly and from other comments here I am not alone.
| Medon wrote: | | TV gaps though, are mostly hated for 'rookie teams' in their first season. It is not fun to play against 2000 TV elves if you don't yet have enough tackle in your team yet. It is not fun to play against 2000TV dwarves if you don't have enough guard yourself yet. |
Rookies vs 2000TV is probably a TV gap too far, and thats before you take in racial matchups that are already biased (i.e. rookie Zons vs 2000TV Dwarves). However, in BB2020, if a brand new rookie team in its first game will either be, in a Game # Based Scheduler, drawn against another rookie team OR a more seasoned team in its first game of the season. And this in theory is against a team with 1350TV (i.e. the cap) and 350k inducement money is good value in many match ups. |
|
|
Uber
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 21:00 |
|
@ClayInfinity: I'm just paraphrasing what Christer said, but maybe people will love it this time around. I think blackbox TV matching could remain as an option because he said it's the best way for the scheduler to work, but it might be better to have game # based matching done an entirely differently way. |
_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict. |
|
ClayInfinity
Joined: Aug 15, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 21:15 |
|
@Uber, appreciate that. I just think the Game# scheduler opens up some different meta's...
For example, as two teams enter their 15th and final game of the season, it could be quite a climax if both teams have good records... and would one team go "all in" in terms of spps and treasury for a Star Player for example. Particularly if someone needed the win to qualify for a tournament (which is a concept I mentioned earlier a few pages back).
Also, would allow a teams season to be judged on "strength of schedule"... whilst not all teams would make it to seasons end (coach drops off fumbbl, hates the team etc), you could have some sort of SoS metric beside teams to try and rank a seasonal effort. If you went 14-1 and your opponents record was an average of 80% win ratio, could you be considered the best team ever? Using Game# Scheduler would make those records more meaningful if you'd played out the season alongside other teams at the same stage of season.
I just think it adds to the whole "season" being the prime objective rather than individual team building and this is important considering the rules are steering the game in that direction. |
|
|
Dominik
Joined: Oct 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 21:23 |
|
All the major tourney prices become nearly worthless (except the healing scroll) if the tv cap will be 1350 (and if skills and stat increases can be chosen freely).
For me that is what majors make so thrilling: The fight for the big price. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 21:29 |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 21:53 |
|
| ClayInfinity wrote: | | Uber wrote: | The fact remains that TV gaps are universally hated. If you remove TV as main factor for the scheduler, you end up creating more and more wide gap matchups that people hate.
|
Personally I think you're way off the mark re being "universally hated". I personally enjoy the inducements in BB greatly and from other comments here I am not alone.
| Medon wrote: | | TV gaps though, are mostly hated for 'rookie teams' in their first season. It is not fun to play against 2000 TV elves if you don't yet have enough tackle in your team yet. It is not fun to play against 2000TV dwarves if you don't have enough guard yourself yet. |
Rookies vs 2000TV is probably a TV gap too far, and thats before you take in racial matchups that are already biased (i.e. rookie Zons vs 2000TV Dwarves). However, in BB2020, if a brand new rookie team in its first game will either be, in a Game # Based Scheduler, drawn against another rookie team OR a more seasoned team in its first game of the season. And this in theory is against a team with 1350TV (i.e. the cap) and 350k inducement money is good value in many match ups. |
Universally hated in the Dakkaverse but only a handful inhabit that universe. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 10, 2020 - 01:28 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Then season's record should be part of the schedule. |
Try to build one. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 10, 2020 - 11:11 |
|
I think technically, TV gaps in a TV matching environment have a negative outcome for people with extreme TV-focused min-maxing.
Where it's OK to run 1 guard and 0 RR with Leader because your opponents are probably no guards and your superstar killer can get you numbers against their zero-skill linemen all day, and they won't even have anything to hit back with most of the time.
Because when those teams play up a long way, none of that works, and a big 5-legend clawbash team trimming your stars for you is much more of a problem to recover from.
Neither team really exists in BB20, I expect. Maybe someone's running 3x superstars and sneaking through rebuy at low TV, but they'll know they're going to be running inducements against most teams when they do it. It's just part of the expectation and your team needs to work either way if you want to win a lot, plus there's no reason to stay low TV as filling out positions again is generally stronger than any inducements. |
_________________
  |
|
ClayInfinity
Joined: Aug 15, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 10, 2020 - 11:53 |
|
| koadah wrote: | Then season's record should be part of the schedule.
If you have teams at 1/8, 2/9, 8/1, 9/2, I'd rather see the 1/8 vs 2/9 & 8/1 vs 9/2 than pure games played. |
I like this. If you do the Game# Scheduler, then 2nd stage of match selection should be current season record. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 10, 2020 - 12:26 |
|
| tussock wrote: | | I think technically, TV gaps in a TV matching environment have a negative outcome for people with extreme TV-focused min-maxing. |
TV gaps have negative outcome for people not minmaxing as well.
I found more than one TV gap where my not minmaxed teams found a monoactivated high TV team (or a TV gap for no reason).
Yesterday I found a TV 100 gap even if I activated 11 teams and I had some closer to my opponent team's TV, yet the scheduler arranged a TV gap:
https://fumbbl.com/p/match?id=4228875
My team was not minmaxed. 3 rrs, no Leader.
Not fair at all, there is no reward for activating many teams, instead the monoactivators are rewarded by finding underdogs (not implying Java monoactivated, he didn't, but there are some guys monoactivating 2000+ teams and creating TV gaps, and even when there are no monoactivators, the scheduler sometimes creates mismatches even when it could be possible to have a smaller TV gap).
Looks to me that the scheduler could be calibrated better. |
|
|
SzieberthAdam
Joined: Aug 31, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 10, 2020 - 12:48 |
|
I like the idea of GameNr but I would also add SeasonNr to the scheduler.
A cost function then might be like this:
MatchupCost = AdjustedSeasonNrDiff * AdjustedSeasonNrDiff + Abs(GameNrDiff)
where
AdjustedSeasonNrDiff = Min(5, Team1SeasonNr) - Min(5, Team2SeasonNr)
Thus the scheduler would consider Season Nr above 5 as 5.
I would not add season record to the scheduler.
EDIT: fixed stupidity. |
_________________
   |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
