Schloesser-Alt
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 11, 2003 - 11:04 |
 
|
Hi all,
if i missed it til now, i´m sorry to open this topic.
Will there be sometime a handicap table?
Greetings
Schloesser-Alt |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2003 - 15:47 |
|
I think the last version of this topic went away with the old forums.
The client program that we use doesn't support the handicap table. While there are a number of rolls that you could handle before the game (an extra re-roll, extra cash, etc...) if Christer and Klipp were to either automate it or come up with a way to standardize how it was used, there's simply a lot of results that can't be simulated with JavaBBowl.
If you think about it, think of all the things that would have to be changed just to have 2 players not be able to be on the field at the same time. Now think of all the things that you could break by trying to add that in. Is it worth it? Is it worth it when there are almost 1000 teams to choose your opponent from?
I really do think it would be cool, but I doubt it will be coming any time soon. Sorry. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
Xynok
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2003 - 16:21 |
|
It is my strong opinion that the current Handicap table is next to worthless anyway. If we could agree on a better system that is easier to implement, I think it would be a good thing. Something along the lines of a roll to determine how many random players from the higher ranked team refuse to play a "lesser" team, or simply institute an automatic "can only field worst 11 players."
The point is, there should be some sort of handicap, but it needs to BE a handicap; too many results on the current table are not what I would consider a handicap. I feel the best handicaps in this game focus on balancing team personnel, so losing players and/or fielding your worst 11 players (ie fewest SPPs) seems to be the logical choice, and would not be very hard to implement (compared to other results). Perhaps adding a bonus to winnings for the underdog would also be logical (added fan support, endorsements, etc. for playing such a better team). The exact degree of the handicap, based on disparity in TR, would have to be fleshed out of course.
I feel a system like this is superior (even in the "real" game), because everyone is playing under EXACTLY the same handicaps. This removes the randomness of something that really shouldn't BE random if it is to be truly considered a handicap. Otherwise, as currently, it is simply yet another "luck" roll. A handicap should just BE a handicap. Period.
My 2 cents.
~Xy |
|
|
elara
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2003 - 19:28 |
|
A workable system that doesnt require much change would be a "master chef" type effect.
At each handicap point, the weaker team gains a reroll and the stronger team loses a reroll. Given most teams have 50-60k rerolls, it fits in reasonably with the original handicap table with 1st handicap point at +11 team rating.
While the difference between TR100 and TR150 is greater than between TR200 and TR250, I think the TR250 team will also be less affected by the loss of rerolls than a TR150 team, since the players have more skills to avoid turnovers (e.g. block).
The idea doesnt work so well for two "developed" teams with 7 or 8 rerolls on the roster though. |
|
|
Tribble_the_Unclean
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2003 - 22:42 |
|
I don't know. I personally think the handicap table would be worth it, if not just to have it implemented. It seems like Ski Junkie wants to get at least all of the core LRB rules coded in, so it will be compatible with those who are most familiar with the real game. I think FUMBBL should follow this path; FUMBLL will be a much more attractive and fun league the less it deviates from the core LRB. |
|
|
AsperonThorn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 12, 2003 - 00:54 |
|
I both agree and disagree, Tribble. I agree that Ski Junkie seems to want Javabowl to be as close to the LRB as possible, but sacrafices have already been made for coding simplicity. There are already several small deviations from the rules and as they are small, and the program is still great, we have accepted them. "House rules" (if you can call a league spanning the globe and involving almost 400 coaches a house) that changed the handicap table to something feasibly programmed by volunteers, would certainly be acceptable.
But, I strongly agree with the ending post the last time this was brought up, and to paraphrase "There are enough coaches, and enough teams in Fumbbl, that you need not play a team with a big enough difference in TR to warrant a handicap table, at this time."
Asperon Thorn |
|
|
Tribble_the_Unclean
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 12, 2003 - 01:21 |
|
Oh I do agree that there are enough coaches, and there seems to be a huge amount of new teams continually flowing in to allow teams at almost any level to play at any given time. And I understand that the handicap table would be pretty difficult to implement, given the sheer number of possibilities and oddities that may occur. Both are excellent points.
One point that I would like to bring up, however, is that it would make things a little harder for higher ranked teams to take on "feeder" low level teams just to boost their star players for an even bigger game coming up. I understand that this is seen as a tactic by some, but it can be rather silly. I took part in a feeder game last night just because it was the only offer to play; needless to say, my halflings got destroyed.  |
|
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 12, 2003 - 01:22 |
|
As a high TR coach, I must say that I think having the handicap table implemented would be a very good idea. But I understand the hideous complexity of coding it. I would much rather see the remaining skills implemented especially Pass Block, to help out those poor dwarven teams. The one thing that I greatly appreciate with the Open league is that it stays true to the core LRB rules. Unless we can achieve a large consensus on a suitably simplified handicap system, I think it's best that we leave it up to the coaches to be reasonable in the teams that they challenge. It might be an idea to test out handicap systems in the other divisions: Stunty Leeg and DivX where we are a little more loose on sticking to the "official" rules.
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/05/13/tomo/index.html |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
Schloesser-Alt
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 12, 2003 - 10:16 |
|
After I have played some games I came to the conclusion that no handicap table is needed.
I agree with most of you, there are enough teams and coaches to find a good game partner with similar TR.
But on the other hand I think that it will be more fun with the handicap table. Not that´s not fun yet. The client and this site are great! 
Greetings
Schloesser-ALt |
|
|
AlphaX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2003 - 00:40 |
|
needed. hardest thing to implement will be #14 - "inspiration" ??? (this is a perm MVP & potentially a skill, to be most "secure" it should tie into fumbbl.com (with a reload of team roster) so no one could potentially hack their client and get what ever roll they wanted on the skills. but tieing to fumbbl should be an option so those who just want to play casually can.
rerolls dont cut it for handcap. |
|
|
Tedage
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 21, 2003 - 10:54 |
|
Handicap has annoyed me for ages, if you dont think u can take on the team then dont. Dont rely on handicapping etc... |
|
|
MrDurden
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 26, 2003 - 14:53 |
|
just my 2 cents
I agree with the idea of handi-caps, but the xtra mvp´s are imho enough, or not ? |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 26, 2003 - 17:29 |
|
| AlphaX wrote: | | needed. hardest thing to implement will be #14 - "inspiration" ??? (this is a perm MVP & potentially a skill, to be most "secure" it should tie into fumbbl.com (with a reload of team roster) so no one could potentially hack their client and get what ever roll they wanted on the skills. |
You'd need to have the handicap rolls done on the server before the match (as brought up in a poll by Klipp in another thread), otherwise, two 'friends' could keep starting matches and not playing them until they got handicap rolls for extra MVPs and cash.
Also, it's important to remember that we are the largest group of people using Ski's client, but not the only one. The client we use isn't (and IMHO shouldn't be) specific to FUMBBL. Tying some sort of server verifications into the client could wreak havok for anyone else trying to use the program and potentially for us, if we had a bunch of other people's results/handicaps/etc... being uploaded to FUMBBL auto-magically. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
DarkTom
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 20, 2003 - 08:43 |
|
I think implementing the handicap table would be a good a idea. And it is not as hard as you say .... only a little bit complicated. I would volunteer for trying it if SkiJunkie sent me the sources.
| Quote: | | If you think about it, think of all the things that would have to be changed just to have 2 players not be able to be on the field at the same time. Now think of all the things that you could break by trying to add that in. Is it worth it? Is it worth it when there are almost 1000 teams to choose your opponent from? |
So, what would have to be changed? Checking if two players both are on the field is as easy as checking if there are 3 players at the line of scrimmage.
| Quote: | | hardest thing to implement will be #14 - "inspiration" ??? (this is a perm MVP & potentially a skill, to be most "secure" it should tie into fumbbl.com (with a reload of team roster) so no one could potentially hack their client and get what ever roll they wanted on the skills |
I agree, that's one of the harder ones. Leaving this league unconsidered, there's no problem with selecting a new skill in the client. Remember that the mvp rolls are already made in the client anyway. For this league, I would suggest to take the client's roll for that single game only and make a new roll in the league when the result is uploaded.
And why should someone hack the client for an extra mvp when he already can arrange a game with his friend to any result they like (except perhaps for casualties)? We can do nothing but trust that everyone follows the rules.
The same goes for hacking the client. There are possibilities that are far more dangerous than arranging a game with a friend. Perhaps the league should think about putting the dice rolls into the Proxy to make it more secure... but it would be slower as well. |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
