Posted by dode74 on 2012-07-08 21:51:54

Reposting this:

There's no problem with low TV minmaxing a team per se - I've yet to see any low TV minmaxed team do particularly well in a league (if anyone has any data to the contrary I'd be interested), and tournaments tend to either prevent such team-builds through the rules or are progression with higher TV teams involved anyway.

The problem arises when you mix minmaxing with TV-matching. Unless TV-matching were done away with (hah!) then some form of (TV-based?) penalty to minmaxed teams may be necessary to create the fair matchups Box purports to offer. The problems occur in defining "fair" (I'd say it was a game where either team could, on paper, have a reasonable chance of winning, not counting CR in any way) and defining minmaxing (see Fightingmongoose's comment reference prawnography).

There are plenty of other options - it might be better to allow new coaches a 5 to 10-game grace period whereby they can turn down box matches, thus preventing the newbie coaches from being picked on by such teams, then give them a "here be dragons" warning which they have to acknowledge before continuing.

Posted by easilyamused on 2012-07-08 22:03:32

I try not to get involved in CRP debates as they inevitably run the spiral of death and end in an anti CLAWPOMB whinefest. But dammnit dode, no-one is saying anything about CLAWPOMB being successfull in league so what you are saying is a completely moot point, what people are complaining about is CLAWPOMB preying on new teams, now I've been on the wrong end of this type of match up and it was quite possibly the most unenjoyable game of BB I've ever played.

Granted that moaning about it wont change anything but neither will saying that it doesn't dominate L.

Min/max is here to stay and yes there are coaches out there who will take advantage if it to win games but hey, any game will always get people who meta it. Best to take a deep breath and move along.

Posted by dode74 on 2012-07-08 22:08:21

I didn't say a word about CPOMB :/
My comment about leagues/tournaments was an illustration that it is the environment, not the ruleset, causing the issue. If it was the ruleset then the problem would turn up in all environments, but it doesn't. If you'd got past the first paragraph you might have seen that.

What I suggested was a way to prevent new coaches being preyed upon by low TV minmax teams (which include things like Zons) and therefore being scared off the site.

Posted by Synn on 2012-07-08 22:18:38

Dode, I like you.... but getting rid of 'TV Matchmaking' does nothing if you don't get rid of inducements. Getting rid of inducements is a violation of CRP.

Hence the point.

Posted by easilyamused on 2012-07-08 22:21:04

Apologies dode, meant to put min/max rather than CLAWPOMB but we both know from experience where this conversation will end.

Posted by MattDakka on 2012-07-08 22:23:12

"any game will always get people who meta it"
yes, but once the metagame pattern (in the case of the Box it's Clawpomb spam) has been spotted it can be hampered and mitigated by adopting simple restrictions and rules tailored to the specific environment.
Capping the number of Clawpombers-per-TV could be a step forward.
While 4 Clawpombers can be fine at TV 1700+ (just an example, take this with a pinch of salt), they are not fine at low-med TV (1400 or less).
And about the usual win rate discussion, stats and league data, I don't care if cpombers either win 100% or 0% of their games, what I do care is that they make a game 100% dull and boring when I meet them in the Box

Posted by easilyamused on 2012-07-08 22:23:12

And yes I did make it past the first paragraph but I always seem to see the same thing being said and there is only so many times I can read it.

Posted by dode74 on 2012-07-08 22:26:10

@ PGoo - posted it once before, actually. If you were to take the time to read it instead of being snide then you might have noted that.

@ Synn - I wasn't suggesting that TV matching should or would be done away with here in that post (whether I think it should or not). I was offering an alternative method of protecting new coaches from the low-TV minmaxers, which I understand, having read a lot of other people posting about it, to be the issue. No limitations on minmaxing itself, no limitations on minmaxers preying on new teams with experienced coaches, just a way to give new coaches a chance to get to know the site and game a bit without being scared off in their first game.

@ EA - where has that been suggested before?

Posted by Jeffro on 2012-07-08 22:29:49

/me gets a bowl of popcorn...

/me soaks it with the box wine...

/me sits, slurps, and chews...

Posted by easilyamused on 2012-07-08 22:31:04

The actual suggewstion of the 10 game grace period is not so different from the suggestion I made before where games under 10 games old can only play other teams under 10 games old in the Box. The part I was objecting to was the statement about min/maxing dominating league, I have seen thi debate and the resultant blog posts before and with the sheer amount of repetiveness we see around here about min/max and CLAWPOMB I want to try and avoid it again if possible :)

Posted by Purplegoo on 2012-07-08 22:32:06

Oh lord. I deleted because I didn't want to get involved in _yet_ another one, but telling other people to read things again when you're so blinkered as to miss the points you're calling snide is delicious. :) It would be shooting fish in a barrel if I were actually the snide / forummy type!

Virtual hand extended, I shall enjoy with popcorn and leave it to my betters. I'm too old and tired for all this. ;)

Posted by easilyamused on 2012-07-08 22:32:22

and you've now made me break my own rule about these discussions, i'm shutting up now :P

Posted by pythrr on 2012-07-08 22:40:46

oh god shut up dode, and stop spamming synn's blog.

Posted by SillySod on 2012-07-08 22:43:35

Correct, change the ruleset.... or rather, change the way you rate teams.

Posted by dode74 on 2012-07-08 22:43:59

@ PGoo - I noticed you do seem to make a lot of comments about (but not addressing) posts I've made. That said, virtual hand accepted.

@ EA - the difference between our suggestions is that I am only trying to protect new coaches, not new teams with experienced coaches (who know the risks). The main argument against minmaxing right now seems to be that it can scare off new coaches.
I'm still after data on the CPOMB/Leagues thing - I'm not saying it doesn't or won't happen, but it hasn't yet afaik. Positions are entrenched on this though, so I'll not pursue this.

Being told to shut up by the forum's biggest troll is amusing though :D

Posted by pythrr on 2012-07-08 23:03:45

consider it a public service announcement,

you've only moved your spam to blogs because Woodstock can't LOCK blogs.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-07-08 23:05:56

I agree with Dode, TV is the problem (for the FUMBBL environment). It doesn't need getting rid of, but 'tweaking'. If that doesn't work, tweak some more. Eventually, we'd get it as good as you can get it.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-07-08 23:09:19

IIRC Dode, Synn and harvestmouse were all massive supporters of FF becoming a more important factor in TV match making.

Posted by cameronhawkins on 2012-07-08 23:36:45

Harvestmouse is right on.

A couple comments I hear a lot are

"It will never be perfect"

"No matter how you set it, someone will find new ways to break the system".

These are both irrefutable, but neither is a reason to not attempt improvement.

By comparison, the when the PC game Starcraft was released in 1998, there were balance issues. Even with data available after (literally) millions of games on battle.net, they were still releasing biannual balance patches as late as 2009. Is it perfect now? Of course not. But it's much, much better than before.

On a side note, I would also say that it's arguably the JOB of a good player to try to find (or "exploit") the weak points in a gaming system. After that, they can be considered and improved upon. If you're looking for challenge and want to play halflings for every game, then do it, but if you trying to win, it's hard to make the argument that coming up with an extremely effective strategy is itself contemptible.

Posted by KhorneliusPraxx on 2012-07-09 00:05:44

I am not even going to waste an hour reading all of this analysis. Can we just play and have fun without all of the nit picking and over thinking of everything.

Posted by Endzone on 2012-07-09 00:35:39

If you matched on a 'Team Strength' (TS) basis as has been used in Ranked, the lower TV wouldn't get the inducements. So I think you can 'fix' it.

Posted by Irgy on 2012-07-09 01:59:25

I'd much rather be playing with a 1500TV team and giving away 40k inducements than playing a 1100TV team. Especially against a "min-maxed" team. Inducements can be good at times, but generally they're not worth as much (and intended not to be worth as much) as having more players and skills.

Posted by Synn on 2012-07-09 02:00:24

Endzone, that isn't true. You can match games by "TS" but inducements are driven by TV in CRP.

Posted by Arktoris on 2012-07-09 05:57:06

the best way to deal with low TV min max teams is mature your team beyond that level.

It only takes about 4-5 games and after that, you're never in the range again.

Posted by Fela on 2012-07-09 11:37:16

Well, it would be fixable if you tweaked the matchmaking system to a formula that min/max teams are essentially only matched (with any serious probability) versus other min/max teams. You wouldn't even have to touch CRP rules that way.

All you'd have to do is identify the factors that distinguish min/max from 'normal' builds, give those factors a high score and then match teams by minimum of both, difference in derived score and difference in TV.

Posted by BillBrasky on 2012-07-09 11:40:18

I would like to see something put into effect that a team with less than say... 10 games can not be paired with a team with greater than 50 games.

That should cut out the newb sniping.

Just a thought.

Posted by Ffoley on 2012-07-09 12:09:25

As a relative newcomer who played my first few 10 or so games in the Box I never saw anyone minmaxing. my experience makes me think the problem is more in theory than reality. What puts me off playing here (apart from real life stuff) is the in game comments and lack of friendliness by some people.

Posted by Fela on 2012-07-09 12:10:10

Of course that would mean that a recovering team will only face min/max, so recovery is impossible in the box.

Posted by easilyamused on 2012-07-09 13:38:04

@Ffoley

Min/maxing isn't as prevalent now as it used to be, but when you run into a min/max team it sticks out like a sore thumb so people think its a bigger problem than it really is. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of extreme min/maxing and personally prefer team building but everyone is entitled to have fun however they want.

It just sucks when your nice shiny new team gets mangled by uber cheese :)

Posted by Ffoley on 2012-07-09 14:20:34

Generally I don't agree with legislating for the theory that new people are greatly put off by stuff like this. I learned pretty quickly that Box is populated by good coaches using the best teambuilds (so I went to R to cherrypick my CR back up to evens). I think there should perhaps be some more advice on site for new coaches along the lines of a warning that B is hardcore.

Posted by bghandras on 2012-07-09 15:09:54

An easy solution: Allow teams to develop in ranked, and move to box then. Then you can cherripick teams in ranked, and move to box after you are above the critical TV limit.

Posted by blader4411 on 2012-07-09 15:14:17

I hope you're joking bghandras.
Allowing teams to move would just mean a splurge of 2000+ R teams that could never get there in the Box, swarming tournaments and beating down natural B teams. Soon every coach who wants to win will have to bring in R teams to compete with the immigrants, and B won't exist anymore.

Posted by Endzone on 2012-07-09 18:52:53

to Synn

For clarity I was meaning to say inducements should also be driven by TS. I appreciate this is not in CRP, but as variations to CRP go this is a fairly 'soft' one. The game would still be played 'from whistle to whistle' with CRP. CRP has nothing about automated matching systems etc. so it would be reasonable for a league like Blackbox to apply a matching system that works whilst applying CRP 'in game'.

Posted by Narlgoth on 2012-10-22 18:49:59

As all this TS inducements thing would boost my Hobgoblin team a lot I say yes to these!

Otherwise stop bothering to debate about it- its not going to change, and if it does those that metagamed with Min/max and ClawPOMB will find the next weak point to abuse instead, because those people that will Min/Max and/or ClawPOMB are the same people that will still be here metagaming regardless of what gets changed in the system. Get in line and ClawPOMB/Min/Max like everyone else or grit your teeth and take it. :- (