24 coaches online • Server time: 01:37
* * * Did you know? The best blocker is Taku the Second with 551 casualties.
Recent Forum Topics  Gnomes are trash | Roster Tiers | Gnomes FTW! (Replays... |
2011-10-03 21:15:10
13 votes, rating 2.8
13 votes, rating 2.8
inducements rant
This might just be a rant of rage after a tough game which hurt one of my teams badly (I was playing a team at 500 TV less than mine in a league game), but it is something that I've felt for a long time now. I guess that the issue has probably already been discussed in numerous chats and fora, I'm not the most active member of this community. But i'll post this anyway, and see what people say:
The current inducements system is much more predictable and balanced than the previous handicap system was. At the same time, I feel that it also means that it no longer matters which team has the best roster. The inducements make the teams even, or may even make the underdog stronger after inducements have been bought. One might argue that this is good because then all that matters is coaching skills. And luck. This is a point, but part of coaching skills is also the ability to build strong teams and make them survive. Your teams now risk being bashed to death not only by stronger, better teams, but also by generally any team who gets to hire a chainsaw or similar star. And even if you don't get bashed, it's still rather boring that it's now not really that meaningful to have a strong, high TV, team.
I'm sure there's loads of good arguments against all this, so let's hear it! :)
(Perhaps I should mention that I've not succeeded in building high TV teams that often (or TR in lrb4) so for me this discussion is slightly theoretical, but I still think it's an important issue.)
The current inducements system is much more predictable and balanced than the previous handicap system was. At the same time, I feel that it also means that it no longer matters which team has the best roster. The inducements make the teams even, or may even make the underdog stronger after inducements have been bought. One might argue that this is good because then all that matters is coaching skills. And luck. This is a point, but part of coaching skills is also the ability to build strong teams and make them survive. Your teams now risk being bashed to death not only by stronger, better teams, but also by generally any team who gets to hire a chainsaw or similar star. And even if you don't get bashed, it's still rather boring that it's now not really that meaningful to have a strong, high TV, team.
I'm sure there's loads of good arguments against all this, so let's hear it! :)
(Perhaps I should mention that I've not succeeded in building high TV teams that often (or TR in lrb4) so for me this discussion is slightly theoretical, but I still think it's an important issue.)
Comments
Posted by blader4411 on 2011-10-03 21:19:53
It's not perfect, but quite a bit better than before, where everything except a few were pointless (morley's, virus, I am the greatest).
Let me ask you one thing in return.
How would you balance TV difference?
-Blader
Let me ask you one thing in return.
How would you balance TV difference?
-Blader
Posted by Royston on 2011-10-03 21:26:50
I'm examining the inducement stats from the first year of lrb6 in OBBA. So far I've not seen a huge pattern from 54 matches, but after I analyse the other half of the league I'll have an idea.
Posted by DukeTyrion on 2011-10-03 21:34:38
It's easy to build and maintain a high TV Dwarf team, not so easy to build and maintain a high TV Pro Elf team ... at least the inducements makes it worthwhile to play the low AV teams in leagues again.
Posted by justagigolo on 2011-10-03 21:37:22
Just on personal feelings alone, I don't feel that inducements provide nearly as much of a benefit as having two equal valued teams. 500 tv is a huge gap. When I see a number like that, I think of it being equal to 25 regular skills. One star player isn't going to remotely compare to the value of all those skills. Even a chainsaw is purely a crapshoot, sometimes you get the delightfully violent one, others they are bound and determined to saw off their own head.
Make no mistake, the inducements help a lot. Yet, I am pretty sure they do purely what they are intended to, that is make an underdog competitive, but still the underdog.
Make no mistake, the inducements help a lot. Yet, I am pretty sure they do purely what they are intended to, that is make an underdog competitive, but still the underdog.
Posted by Garion on 2011-10-03 21:53:26
AYr the Duke speaks the truth. I think the inducements were built with a low av team slant in mind, which is surely a good thing, and besides they are just better than the handicap system which could swing from the pointless to the absurdly effective in a couple of dice rolls.
Posted by JigerJones on 2011-10-03 21:56:27
A lucky chainsaw is what wrecked KJG's team. Killed his best two players. Haven't done the math, but I would say those two were close to 500 TV combined. Sadly I was the chainsaw wielder :(
Posted by KJG on 2011-10-03 22:08:56
No hard feelings Jiger, these things happen! :)
@blader 4411: I'm not sure I would want to balance teams that much. If it's Box or Ranked they get balanced anyway, if it's league then some imbalance is part of the league structure (and adds to the fun, I might say). Most leagues have divisions that take care of that anyway.
If a handicap system is used then I would like it to be slightly less powerful. The old system, while flawed in many ways, used a scale whereby the first handicap was gained at 11 TR difference, the second at (was it?) 26 and then something higher, so that the more handicaps you had the more it took to get to the next "level". Something along those lines might be nice. Might be difficult to implement with the new system being based on gold, but still.
As some of you have pointed out a chainsaw is random and it's not always that lucky. I'm not saying the chainsaw is overpowered or anything, it was just an example.
I appreciate the fact that the new system helps low av teams. That's always good, I'm all for that.
On another note it's a shame that the new system has ruined my favourite team the flings, as they are now useless in Ranked or Box :/
@blader 4411: I'm not sure I would want to balance teams that much. If it's Box or Ranked they get balanced anyway, if it's league then some imbalance is part of the league structure (and adds to the fun, I might say). Most leagues have divisions that take care of that anyway.
If a handicap system is used then I would like it to be slightly less powerful. The old system, while flawed in many ways, used a scale whereby the first handicap was gained at 11 TR difference, the second at (was it?) 26 and then something higher, so that the more handicaps you had the more it took to get to the next "level". Something along those lines might be nice. Might be difficult to implement with the new system being based on gold, but still.
As some of you have pointed out a chainsaw is random and it's not always that lucky. I'm not saying the chainsaw is overpowered or anything, it was just an example.
I appreciate the fact that the new system helps low av teams. That's always good, I'm all for that.
On another note it's a shame that the new system has ruined my favourite team the flings, as they are now useless in Ranked or Box :/
Posted by pythrr on 2011-10-03 22:33:00
um, that's the point of inducements, no?
Posted by Lobossumi on 2011-10-03 22:41:01
Ruined flings how? Flings have always been useless.
Posted by Garion on 2011-10-03 22:58:30
Naa he is right there, flings were my favourite race in lrb4 too, they were pretty good in ranked, they stink now because of inducements in TV match making divisions and the lack of chefs on rosters that dont add to TV. however they are better in leagues, quite a lot better really but only if you play the induement game with them.
Posted by pythrr on 2011-10-03 23:17:53
gobbos like the new inducements tho
cheap bribes FTW!
cheap bribes FTW!
Posted by Corvidius on 2011-10-04 00:26:45
Inducements are doing their job as far as i'm concerned. :)
Posted by icesmooth on 2011-10-04 08:34:12
I have to say I think the current inducement system is adequate. When an opponent I'm playing happens to get a chainsaw it usually doesn't worry me too much. Quite frankly most coaches don't know how to field a chainsaw anyways, making the chainsaw an easy target after an initial blitz and boom! there goes that inducement.
In your case I see you were playing Jiger who undoubtedly (I haven't watched the replay) protected the chainsaw. Even in the scenario where the coach protects the chainsaw, it is almost always at the sacrifice of good positioning leaving a gap to either get the ball on defense or score on offense both with the end result (hopefully) that the chainsaw gets sent off.
In your case I see you were playing Jiger who undoubtedly (I haven't watched the replay) protected the chainsaw. Even in the scenario where the coach protects the chainsaw, it is almost always at the sacrifice of good positioning leaving a gap to either get the ball on defense or score on offense both with the end result (hopefully) that the chainsaw gets sent off.
Posted by f_alk on 2011-10-04 09:39:04
there has been quite a long forum thread about how effective inducements are. They are in the range of what Galak aimed for when they were introduced.
Posted by KJG on 2011-10-04 09:49:18
@icesmooth: You're right about the protected chainsaw. I had a chance to score, and he focused on sawing key positionals. In this instance it payed off and in the end he managed to get the score, but it was a close call. Anyway, this match wasn't the main point, the problem I see with inducements was the main point, and like I said, I generally like the chainsaw, it's not overpowered, and it's a great boost for gobbos. Anyway, thanks for your input people, good points.