61 coaches online • Server time: 22:42
* * * Did you know? The fouliest player is Carpal with 1035 fouls.
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Linux (Ubuntu) - can...goto Post GIFgoto Post Flings in the new ed...
Christer
Last seen 4 hours ago
Khemri Tomb Kings
Star
Khemri Tomb Kings
Record
59/24/37
Win Percentage
59%
Shambling Undead
Super Star
Shambling Undead
Record
51/5/10
Win Percentage
81%
Overall
[R]
Star
Overall
Record
228/56/79
Win Percentage
71%
Archive

2019

2019-04-14 23:33:08
rating 6
2019-04-07 16:59:39
rating 6
2019-04-07 00:55:26
rating 6
2019-01-08 15:27:38
rating 5.9
2019-01-05 02:58:18
rating 5.8

2018

2018-08-17 17:28:31
rating 6
2018-08-15 00:05:40
rating 6
2018-07-17 20:17:40
rating 6
2018-06-28 14:28:08
rating 5.9
2018-05-23 17:55:10
rating 6
2018-05-10 22:42:46
rating 6
2018-05-09 19:42:28
rating 6
2018-04-30 10:44:23
rating 5.8
2018-04-23 12:33:02
rating 5.8

2017

2017-04-23 18:06:35
rating 6
2017-04-06 23:00:56
rating 6
2017-04-03 19:06:00
rating 6
2017-03-29 22:35:46
rating 6
2017-03-25 16:18:39
rating 6
2017-03-11 21:24:26
rating 6
2017-02-14 14:23:58
rating 6
2017-02-10 14:54:03
rating 6

2016

2016-11-30 00:04:21
rating 6
2016-11-27 23:40:04
rating 6
2016-11-17 18:18:07
rating 6

2015

2015-09-06 23:59:26
rating 6
2015-01-24 15:56:29
rating 6
2015-01-22 13:10:32
rating 6
2015-01-19 21:20:53
rating 6
2015-01-10 19:03:45
rating 6

2014

2014-09-09 15:35:53
rating 6

2013

2013-04-26 11:48:40
rating 5.7

2012

2012-12-18 17:37:29
rating 5.9
2012-11-18 18:19:19
rating 6
2012-09-25 13:47:16
rating 5.6
2012-08-15 12:31:53
rating 5.9
2012-08-10 23:12:22
rating 5.9
2012-06-27 22:53:48
rating 5.9
2012-04-10 11:56:38
rating 5.9
2012-03-07 13:52:00
rating 5.9
2012-02-16 16:59:56
rating 5.9
2012-02-04 19:00:41
rating 5.3

2011

2011-07-25 23:32:43
rating 5.6
2011-05-23 13:12:52
rating 5.6
2011-02-04 14:26:18
rating 5.4

2010

2010-03-26 11:38:41
rating 5.1
2010-03-01 12:16:53
rating 5.6

2009

2009-12-08 16:40:30
rating 5.8

2008

2008-09-11 14:47:19
rating 4.1
2008-02-26 21:16:54
rating 5.3
2008-01-21 01:01:58
rating 5.6

2007

2007-11-06 21:23:14
rating 5.1
2007-10-16 00:26:11
rating 5.4
2007-09-30 17:10:03
rating 5.4
2007-09-30 12:01:42
rating 5.3
2007-08-09 12:14:57
rating 4.5
2007-08-06 12:02:52
rating 4.9
2007-08-03 17:56:21
rating 5.4
2015-01-22 13:10:32
19 votes, rating 6
Unfairness in the Blackbox
There's currently a thread where you guys are talking about unfairness in the blackbox scheduler. While the actual topic is somewhat light-hearted overall, it brought me to make a query into actual games played and produce a chart which shows actual win, tie and loss percentages based on normalized TV difference. This is the chart:



I was writing another response to the thread, but decided to switch it to a blog entry as I was going off on a tangent, and feel that the direction I was heading could be interesting in a wider context.

Basically, there has been a few different threads about the topic of unfair games in the Blackbox division, and I've previously generated a similar chart (although I never published that one). The chart pretty obviously implies that TV difference has very little effect on actual win rates (mind you, this iteration of the chart doesn't show the effect of inducements, as it's normalized), and that the "unfairness" in scheduled games is not really there in reality.

I personally believe that this is more a matter of a particular scheduled match not being fun to play. The question is, however, why isn't it fun? Is it because it feels like it would be unfair, and effectively a psychological effect, or is it actually not interesting to play up in TV?

How do you all feel about this?
Rate this entry
Comments
Posted by sann0638 on 2015-01-22 13:16:30
I love having inducements, personally. Wizards, stars, chef - all good fun!
Posted by koadah on 2015-01-22 13:19:02
Whatever happened to VoodooMike?
Posted by koadah on 2015-01-22 13:27:05
"How do you all feel about this?"

You can probably guess my opinion. ;)

Could you do a graph that show the likelihood of drawing CPOMBer as the TV gap increases.

Or maybe the chances of drawing a big TV gap after 30 games. Or the chances of drawing a CPOMBer after the 30 games.
Posted by bigGuy on 2015-01-22 13:27:39
20% chance to win and 40% chance to loose at -30TV looks... strange
Posted by NerdBird on 2015-01-22 13:56:05
The wizard is highly overpowered, this could have some effect on it. Also, I don't think "winning" is always the main concern, but having a viable team after facing a team of killers with no chance of hitting back.

Posted by Purplegoo on 2015-01-22 14:03:51
I don't really enjoy Inducements in one off pickup games. The mechanism is not 'here is a Block / Guard' Black Orc, that levels the teams', it's more random and gimmick-y than that. That's fine in a tournament, but in one off games, I'd personally rather play without. They also work better for some teams than others.

I guess big bash teams could also set a group of pixels back a fair few games and torpedo results later, regardless of today's result.
Posted by BooAhl on 2015-01-22 14:34:49
I like playing up!
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-01-22 14:56:51
I imagine there is a huge difference between 1200er teams playing 1800 and 1800ers playing 2400s...

but... if there is something to be learned from this... it's worthwhile for the higher rated team to blow some inducement money.. .

At least if the TV diff is more than 600+..
Posted by OenarLod on 2015-01-22 15:02:09
I argued on this a few times and have a couple of issues on missing TV diff cap.

The first one is related to my main team, the VTS, and in general to long-lived Box teams. If I have my team destroyed (and it happened already several times) I embark in a rebuilding, since I like the team and its fluff. But with 500+ games, they may have several games up in TV, making the rebuilding phase a pain because you risk to face another high TV killer. It's not a matter of pixel-hugging, I do not consider myself one, but team-hugging :)

The second one I consider more serious, anyway. With such pairing scheme, the Bot actually ensure that the high TV killers always find an opponent, usually an *innocent* team with the only culprit to be the second one in TV and/or a long lived one, and are free to maim another opponent without risk. With the old scheduler, the high TV killers wouldn't get a match, unless another high TV team is around and usually it is another killer.
Actually, it seems to me that the new scheduler created an ecosystem where the cruel predators have assured a prey, usually one that was outside of their reach.
Posted by SzieberthAdam on 2015-01-22 15:03:22
Well, TV difference has no effect. I guess the chart fluctuates on higher values because of less game played there. What is interesting that loss rate dominates below 150 difference.

I would however cap the TV difference in Blackbox in 430 (maximum 500). That way the lower team could get Morg 'n' Thorg, the most expensive inducement.

I would also give stunty teams some ratio of their TV as free inducement. Let's say Halflings get 1/5 of their TV as a free inducements, so they could always buy a chef at minimum. Go Blackbox!
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-01-22 15:12:44
"With such pairing scheme, the Bot actually ensure that the high TV killers always find an opponent, usually an *innocent* team with the only culprit to be the second one in TV and/or a long lived one"

I gotta admit tho that I'm not really a friend of the new system either. In fact I haven't been playing much box ever since.

The low TV predators were always kinda rare and I always felt the issue was blown out of proportion. If you are loyal to box, you will eventually sink into a TV spot between 1200-1800 permanently at which point low tv prey teams aren't going to be an overwhelming issue.

As for me it's just that I guess the chart does not reflect on my abilities in the sense that I do not usually win games when terribly outmatched in TV but can be almost assured to win games on equal terms.

But I guess one has just to accept that the chart contradicts my empirical observations..
Posted by DukeTyrion on 2015-01-22 15:20:45
I am with Oenar on this one. I like my teams, but I don't care about players. Losing a few players in a game is all part of the action, but if you lose most of your team and have no gold, it's an issue.

I find it best when the box numbers would be odd, as it's likely to give the best chance of an even matchup, with one team dropping out. But the fact is, as Oenar says, if a 2,400 team only activates when there are 4 teams, he will still likely be matched, but will likely be playing a much much lower TV team that he can dismantle at his own pleasure.
Posted by MattDakka on 2015-01-22 16:05:06
I use the simple work around of activating multiple teams at multiple TVs to reduce the risk of getting a huge mismatch.
I suggest to do the same.
About stunties, playing them in the Box is not encouraged: playing a stunty team probably without inducements for 30 games is so frustrating.
Posted by pubstar on 2015-01-22 16:14:16
As far as perceived unfairness, I think something should be said about the volatility of inducements.

Stars have loner, a good portion of the cards are junk, and of course your Wizard can just roll poorly.

If I am playing down 100k and get two crappy cards as inducements, then it is likely that I will feel the match was unfair.

This is incorrect, I feel, since the skills that created the TV difference in the first place are ALSO volatile - your 4x MB might fail to score you enough cas to make up the difference, but that tends to fly under the radar for most players.
Posted by the_Sage on 2015-01-22 16:35:45
Very interesting stuff. Now, the whole 'clawpomb whine' thing is less about losing the game per se, and more about losing the team and the game fun imo (as Koadah said).

If you would plot 'average # of casualties suffered (or perms and deaths)' as a function of 'TV difference', it would more closely represent the source of dissatisfaction, I believe.

-BigGuy wrote:
"20% chance to win and 40% chance to loose at -30TV looks... strange"

That's because it's 40% to win, 40% to lose, and 20% to tie. =D
Posted by happygrue on 2015-01-22 16:47:45
I also think OenarLod is on to something with his comment. Personally, I enjoy playing a wide variety of matchups, so having massive inducements can sometimes be fun. I also think that the box is working really well at lower TV and/or with newish teams (minmax zons are not around much and even CD are getting their due). But I think OenarLod hits the nail on the head with his comment about the problem that remains. Reducing those games against camping high TV killer teams would open up a whole new box experience I think.
Posted by SpecialOne on 2015-01-22 16:51:36
My teams don't progress that fast in the box, but I'm sure my teams will stop playing before they reach 30 matches, so I don't get one of the killer teams. Then I will start new teams and so on.
Posted by happygrue on 2015-01-22 16:55:06
One other comment: I think it's *very likely* to bear out that taking lots of cas tends to be unfun for the coach, regardless of other factors. I'm speaking in the abstract. One of the things I noticed in setting up ARR is that they are basically the races that take the most cas. High Elves and Pro Elves, even vamps and slann can win games but they take a POUNDING, and as such many, many folks just give them a miss. I think that same mentality feeds into this debate. A 1-1 tie against some monster team can be really fun if the other coach is chatty and nice, even if you lose some pixels. But it can also be miserable if the other guy ignores the ball to kill you more, even if it turns that 1-1 tie into a 1-0 win for you - it just isn't fun! That is partly on the killer team playstyle and partly on the coaches playing the match, so it's not simple to fix. But perhaps improvements could be made?
Posted by happygrue on 2015-01-22 17:05:05
Okay, sorry for the triple, but one more factor: I think one main reason for this is that the mechanics of team development simply do not allow for teams to have a deep bench. I have a pro elf team right now, and I have had 12 men for exactly one game. And that was after breaking the site rules and playing with 6 journeymen and an injured positional to save up 420K so that I could buy 7 linemen together. And then I didn't have *any* reserve to replace an injured blitzer or something. If that next game I'd lost two positional players I would have had to just retire the team. These teams take such a beating that you can feel like you will *never* put together a real team but constantly be bashed back down.

Pro elves are an extreme example that illustrates the larger point. Which teams actually have the cash to build a bench that is *critical* for high TV play? It's the killers and regen teams. I don't argue that elf teams with 5 journeymen can still win, it just makes the whole team building part of the game rather silly. I could spend every dollar replacing injuries and probably never get of journeymen again if I tried. Unless your team is something you *really* love then you are probably just going to scrap them rather than wade through rebuilding in the box.

Maybe that's how it should be, but I think it strongly influences the way people feel about the box and what teams they are willing to play.
Posted by Lorebass on 2015-01-22 17:10:21
In support for large inducements:

https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=3312961
Underworld vs Dwarfs with a 980 TV difference. underworld having no clawpomb, only 3 rats and total of 12 players. Sure it was league but this was a league where nearly every game I was playing with at least 400K inducements.

Painstate was in a... Painful state after this.
Posted by King_Ghidra on 2015-01-22 17:18:25
@Wreckage "The low TV predators were always kinda rare and I always felt the issue was blown out of proportion."

I agree. But the argument was that new teams, and often new players, were the most exposed, and the result was that people were quickly put off playing box (and fumbbl).

Now, the players who are exposed to a perceived negative scenario are more experienced players with more experienced teams. We can presume they are, in skill terms and in psychological terms, more able to cope with a bad draw/game.

In that sense the latter scenario seems preferable (assuming the holy grail of every game being fun and fair isn't within reach).
Posted by fidius on 2015-01-22 17:34:09
Yes, KG's point is huge, thus I think the Box fix was net positive. Also I think there's an element of expectations vs reality: "TV-match environment" meets "huge TV gap", which frankly happens in TT leagues all the time, and we suck it up (or ought to). However the team-(re)building damage cpomb teams deal in most matches (with no viable counter), along with their longevity, is what is causing the dissatisfaction, I completely agree. Best of both worlds. Increasing the probability of these teams facing each other seems worth trying. Of course the best solution is rules changes, but wnah wnah wnah, wnahwnah...

Posted by OenarLod on 2015-01-22 18:16:49
@KG "Now, the players who are exposed to a perceived negative scenario are more experienced players with more experienced teams. We can presume they are, in skill terms and in psychological terms, more able to cope with a bad draw/game.
In that sense the latter scenario seems preferable"

I completely agree, and in fact my VTS are still there fighting! :)
I totally support the scheduler changes to protect new teams. I think what we need is just another tweak at high TV, setting a maximum gap, in order to reduce the number of games that high-TV killers can have against mid-TV helpless teams.

I would really like to see the Wild Dragons (and others) back on the pitch.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2015-01-22 18:23:28
I'll be the contrarian here: I love huge TV mismatches both as an underdog and as a favorite. You get to play in a way that is different and unique. Sure your team might get bashed up and be left in shambles but we play in a TV matching environment - the likelihood of hitting every rung as you fall down the TV ladder isnt that great.

Further, how do you ever get practice for tournaments where big TV mismatches have been known to happen?

Also, activating a multitude of teams will help mitigate these issues and I understand that people want to play what they want to play but...

I've only ever had big TV mismatches when I was activating one team.
Posted by gamelsetlmatch on 2015-01-22 18:25:14
I think the way the Box is set up is fair, given that there are so many other Divisions to play in.

To compared to a Temperate Forest, the box is like the Amazon Rain Forest (Predator/Prey relationships that took a very long time to adapt*)

The way the Box is set up now, will most effectively maintain the natural attrition that a team should face. (Natural Team Value)

Just like the Rain Forest, there is literally so much we don't even know about them..

..one thing is for sure, it is actually pretty fun finding out.

#HistoryMaker
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-01-22 18:26:36
Well... Box has always been borderline unplayable, in LRB4 as much as in CRP.

Dealing with the issues in psychological terms usually works by finding a way to deal with them after continued exposure.

Someone just suggested activating multiple teams as a solution. It didn't help, the opposite was the case. An opponent had only scheduled one high level team. Because one of my activated teams had the highest TV all people (at 1580 TV), this team was matched to the 2100 TV team in spite of better options being available for my matchup.

Had I only applied a lower rated team there, somebody else would have ended up with the 2100 team.

So activating multiple teams isn't a solution.

The problem with blackbox is that it produces many fun games but few, just a few are really unbareable to a point where you just want to stop playing.

Over the years the administration has continued to take away any means away to deal with these kinds of games. You get scheduled, you have to play. This is the dogma all box coaches have to adhere because that was what the div was "intended" for.

What is going to happen with the new rules is that new coaches enter the box, have a couple of games, get three shock games in a row and are out again.
The old coaches get more shock games as well and are out too and the only thing really worthwhile playing left are the remaining cpomb games.

After the rule change running slann at 100 games and 1600 TV any longer was really out of the question for me.
Posted by fidius on 2015-01-22 18:38:25
One thing your graph does appear to show, Christer, is that Ties become less frequent as TV gap increases. Could this mean more frequent lopsided matches? This could be more a function of higher TV play than the gap per se, but is still an interesting result. Lopsided matches are not fun for either coach, for most of us anyway (some I'm sure enjoy them, *coughcpombcoachescough*).
Posted by uuni on 2015-01-22 18:42:42
@Wreckage: the point was to activate many teams *on different TV*. <1600 is not very high for a mature team.
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-01-22 18:54:40
@Uuni, had I activated a higher team that would even strenghen the point I was trying to make Uuni.
Posted by uuni on 2015-01-22 19:26:27
@Wreckage: Well, if you had activated higher TV team, the TV difference would have been lower. For example with 1800k team the TV difference would have been 300k.
Posted by Jeffro on 2015-01-22 19:29:01
I agree with Big C on the "unfairness" perception. Folks do want to have fun... not all folks see an uphill battle as the underdog as fun. Nothing is "fair" as the whole term is based on perception. There is balance, as proven... but "fun" and "fair" are unicorns folks continue to chase and the only "winners" are the folks who pretend to have caught them ;)

Personally, I think FUMBBL and CRP is plenty "fair" and heaps of "fun" when there are loads of inducements. I don't even care which end of the inducements I'm on.
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-01-22 19:39:20
@Uuni if I were to activate a 1800 TV team I'd always end up being the dumbass who gets the 300 TV + team...

And even the chart says it's a bad idea to play like that.

And realistically speaking thats the end of the line for me (how high a team can be build on the long run)... not the end of the line for others..
Posted by The_Murker on 2015-01-22 19:52:45
'Team Hugging' is a great comment. Old teams add fluff. Rebuilding an old team several times a year, or even month, can get frustrating.

I enjoy that the low TV predation has lessened. Can we not also think of a logistcal way to lessen the high TV beatings?

ANYTHING Christer implements will not discourage high TV clawpomb players. They will always be there in the Box to get those type of bash game they want, imo. But if we can increase the fun for non-bashers we will have more activations.

Some "outside the Box" ideas..

1) If the high TV team is older than the 30 games, the low TV team gets Journey men added to the roster at the STANDARD tv cost until their tv is equal or higher to the high TV teams. (50k for a human Journeyman, not 80K)
This is a reduced rate for fodder to offset team damage. Drawback.. no Wiz

2) If the TV difference is greater than a set amount (300 Tv?) than when both teams join the game, the lower TV team has a pop-up option to decline the game. If he declines, the match is automatically unscheduled. Sucks to be Mr. Clawpomb. Maybe they will get the hint. I love this option.

3) Try the claw+po nurf. Pretty please.. just give it a 1 month trial.
Posted by uuni on 2015-01-22 20:01:10
I did a quick sample of last 300 box matches, more than 95% of those have less or equal than 250k TV difference. Underdog has at least 0.84 of overdog TV in similar 19 matches out of 20.

I would think that this leads one to hold that most games have rather small TV differences, or how?
Posted by uuni on 2015-01-22 20:13:32
@Wreckage: I am not sure what terms are correct, but I seem to recall someone using term sweetspotting for the habit of trying to play at given fixed TV level which is not low. It is hard for me to say what you think should happen.

I agree with you that currently box seems to encourage building team so that it has the most absolute muscle, highest utilised TV. I am not sure this is exactly a bad thing, as maintaining high utilised TV is indeed a costly task because there is more attrition and presumambly change in the high TV range.

Do you think the box should encourage grinding near some middle range? Currently it seems to encourage climbing the greased TV-pole as high as you can before you fall...
Posted by koadah on 2015-01-22 20:40:48
@unni: what about the last 300 where at least one of the teams has more than 30 games?
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-01-22 20:41:03
@Uuni, I hope you do not consider being constantly beat down to lower TV sweetspotting.

It's not a matter of choice, nor is falling and rising between 1300-1900 hanging on a TV spot, imho.

The system however, does work best within this range, was obviously designed with a main focus on it, which makes total sense for leagues that are short lived.

What would accomodate me most personally? Probably an upper TV limit for teams alltogether or a hard boundary for top teams so they only play each other?
Do I propose this? No, it would be completely contradicting to everything Christer tried to explain with his blog. Also I think teambuilding is one of the most fun and interesting parts of the game, so there should be limits to how to mutiliate the process.

What then, would I think would be a good solution?
Apart from the obvious... fixing cpomb (and along with it all problems of the current ruleset disappearing)... I guess I'd like a way to skip matches.. like ... for instance.. skip one game... but then you have to play the next 10.. or next 20.. or next 30... but either way you can skip 1...

Or .... allow blacklists...blocked opponents.. say allow just maybe 5 people blacklisted.. and you can't change the names for a month... then you can change them again... either way you're stuck with the names you pick and its limited picks...

...something the like... some way to deal with massively unfair matches and the people who produce it...

...or... find a way to give agile teams superior win chances over bash teams... I garantee you, people will still continue to play bash in masses...

Either way, whatever happens, I'll just try to adapt to it.

Posted by uuni on 2015-01-22 21:10:43
@koadah: I don't know, I was lazy and used the matches list with div=10. I think making a proper API request could be a bit more complicated.
Posted by uuni on 2015-01-22 21:29:25
@Wreckage: I hope you did not take my comment as an accusation, that is what I tried to avoid. If I happened to make such insult, I apologize.

I observe you have multiple box teams at over 1850k and I know you play very well. You also have played much more games on the site than I do. It seems possible that you prefer less injuries on team than I tolerate. IMO -AV, -MA or niggle seem usually less than -30k effective TV. This however is a personal opinion on the general CRP metagame and I presume others may likely have more experienced opinions there than mine.
Posted by fidius on 2015-01-22 22:15:46
If it's true that part of players' dissatisfaction with playing certain teams is that recovery seems impossible, some of this could be alleviated via adjusting the winnings rules. The rules are already explicitly flexible when it comes to Spiralling Expenses; maybe it's not a stretch to try one or all of these:
1) Lower SE for problem teams, higher SE for others
2) Different home stadiums produce different winnings pools: -2k winnings for both teams if Nurgle is Home (stadium repair costs!), +2k for both at Pro Elf stadiums (skinny butts in skinny seats means higher Gate)
3) Introduce "medical/burial tax": injuring team pays opponent 10k for every perm they cause, 20k for deaths
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-01-22 22:28:53
Fidius, I don't think money can fix any of the current problems.

The current ruleset is actually the best that has ever been when it comes to dealing with injuries.

In fact there is no reason to ever really be upset when your team gets destroyed because even if you flatline straight to 1000 TV you will always be able to field a somewhat competative team. There is no reason to retire a team ever now (other than the 15 games box rule).

I think what those people complain about is more the subjective experience of being subjected to a terrifying game with no chance of winning and getting torn apart in the process.

And then you are in the situation where you actually have to rebuild a players SKILLS, which can't be replaced with money.
I doubt that these subjective experiences reflect on some unacceptable damage on the teams balance wise.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2015-01-22 22:49:15
Wreckage, please define 'unplayable' so i can reconcile what ive spent most my time on fumbbl doing.
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-01-22 23:09:40
MrtT, You must be referring to my first comment where I was talking about the difficulties with box till way back in LRB4.

Please put emphasis to the 'borderlining'. I was trying to refer to the fact that you have to pay close attention to your team development.

Experimenting with skills is less viable in box and if you don't stay on your toes Box can quickly become a devastating place.

If you build your team 'right' box is very fun and you can expect to meet a lot equally challenging opponents. Because almost everybody here is trying to get it right.

So I'm guessing you're doing that too, but you'll probably know too that if you get a little too crazy with the skills you'll have a hard time coming around.
A competative team that meets a min maxed team has a hard match. But an experimental team that meets a min maxed team, thats where the fun ends.

So, I guess thats what I mean with borderline unplayable.. To enjoy this div you just gotta keep on your toes. Hope you agree with that.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2015-01-22 23:21:56
Absolutely agree with being on my toes. I proposed an idea like fidius and i finally realized the problem it shoots to solve: being down positionals or losing key positionals with specific skills is hard to re acclimate youreself to tactically. If youve messed around with your rerolls and other positionals and you lose that key piece you can be in a really tough spot.

This is true whether youre smallman with cdorfs or me with any elves.

Posted by mrt1212 on 2015-01-22 23:46:01
MattDakka, playing stunties at high tv is more difficult than low Tv, for me at least, with or without inducements. for the simple fact that the skill access between stunties and everyone else are so different as well as what players pool skills.
But playing high tv stunties is a thrill unlike anything else.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2015-01-23 00:36:03
Wreckage, As for activating multiple teams, there is more to it than just that blanket statement:

Activate multiple teams according to TV, games played (>30&<30), type of team all WHILE there more than 3 other people activating Box. You are absolutely correct that in some instances you're merely passing the buck to another sucker or you're just offering yourself up for sacrifice. I have made Gobbos my sacrificial lamb and have been having a great time bleating about it. But yes, with 4 players it doesnt work nearly as well (but it still can provided another player is activating multiple teams), and in the case of myself and smallman, sometimes 4 people is all you get for hours and hours.

But...I know that various people have hammered this point home before but there is no issue with Box that couldn't be helped by simply having more people activate more teams more often. But it is what it is.


Happygrue:

I agree that deep benches aren't really feasible for some teams but...(I like buts and I can not lie) for some teams its a lot easier than others but there is a schematic opportunity cost and a playstyle shift to make it "work". and I lose work loosely since I am a poor example of this given my inherent limitations as a coach.

Any team with core (Dodge, Block) skill-less AV7 or worse linemen will struggle unless they have high AV or ST elsewhere (cdorfs and khemri being THE examples I had in mind)
Any team with core skill-less linemen greater than 60k will struggle because winnings usually make replacement feasible once every two games barring positionals that also need replacing.

And I'd go so far as to say that a deep bench is 15-16 players and almost requires that you foul to get your value out of them.

I feel that sometimes though, people really think there is an intractable compromise between being competitive/TV efficient and durable. I don't think its so big.
Posted by bigGuy on 2015-01-23 08:59:11
Maybe the problem is Spiraling Expenses? Killer teams has millions gold in reserve, while not killer team struggle to rebuild... Looks like SE works opposite than intended.
Posted by Dunenzed on 2015-01-23 11:38:08
I'm against fairness in the box. As I've said previously in other locations, unfairness comes from a range of sources (certain racial pairings, coach skill, dice, etc). Only focusing on tv gaps is less than ideal, as those that prefer to maximise team efficiency are then given free reign to grab themselves a bigger slice of fairness than the other guy.

I still think an easy thing to try is an option to opt out of the scheduler from time to time. Set up an open round robin for a week, limit it to three games, use it for recovery and rebuild, or to arrange a grudge match. If it doesn't work, don't set up another Orr next week.

But yes, it's not very box like.
Posted by uuni on 2015-01-23 11:55:26
Does it really matter if some 1% of matches has over 300k inducements? Is that a gamestopper?
Posted by Dalfort on 2015-01-24 03:05:21
The only thing wrong with Faction was lack of teams playing... (comparison = 4 teams activating is bad) that and it was LRB4...

It's a dead Division; activate more teams, get more coaches activating and (hopefully!) save Black Box from the same fate...

Posted by Leilond on 2015-05-12 13:56:43
We need some "rebuilding team protection" like there is the "new team protection"
If my team lost 400 TV in a match, it will be "fair" to put the team in the "less than 30 matches" protection area for some matches
How many? This can be discussed, tested and trimmed to the best we can think, but when someone has got a 40 matches 1700 TV team that suddently go to 1300 after a bad bash, the team risk to not being rebuilded anymore, because it continue to face an high TV killer every 2-3 matches

Second issue, for me, is the minmaxing. The rules are intended for perpetual leagues or NAF trounaments, where "firing healty players to reroll them" is rarely (if ever) a viable option. To "simulate" this in the box, we need a simple rule that forbit to fire an healty player that played more than (say) 5 matches (thus you can hire players to replace MNG for a cuple of matches or fire unusefull resurrected zombie/rotters)
We can discuss about this number (5), that can be enought for an elf to skill twice, and reduce it to 2 or 3 (but rarely elf has so many money to fire and reroll). But something is to be made to make the game played as intended

I'm moderate satisfied with the box, but I never played more than 30 matches with a team in the box, thus, pheraps, it is for this reason that I'm satisfied (moderately because I hate minmaxing healty firing)