shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
 Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 04:02 |
 
|
| happygrue wrote: | | But it really is a bit eye-rolly to say "you forum people that can't change anything, why haven't you changed anything?" |
that's not what i'm saying...
i'm saying more along the lines of "you forum people can't even get on the same page, how do you expect to make progress?"
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 04:17 |
|
| BillBrasky wrote: | Everyone feels poorly when their team get's cleared from the pitch early in a match, or suffers multiple permanent injuries.
However; I think I have the largest sample size of games in the Box (Currently 8066 games), and maybe 1/10 were vs clawpomb teams. A majority of my games are at High TV. |
I found this guess interesting, because my own gut tells me it's closer to double that.
I did some back of the envelope math to see if either of our guesses ring true - Bill's that 1/10 games are against clawpomb or mine that it's closer to 1/5.
Here's what I found (and this is clearly not scientific at all, I would welcome better numbers).
I took the five teams that we often see having clawpomb and that can get it easily: Chaos, CD, Nurgle, CP and Underworld. I did not include the others (Norse, Necro, Skaven), as those at least often don't have it or require some doubles. Then I added up the number of times each coach played against the big 5 in the box. I took some established names and also some newer folks that have been playing more recently (post-CRP only) but still have more than 1000 games.
Here are the percentages of facing those 5 teams:
BillBrasky: 33%
DukeTyrion: 33%
Oenarlod: 32%
And folks that have ONLY played in CRP era (and setting aside the fact that KenThis hasn't been seen in a year):
mrt1212: 37%
Dunenzed: 37%
cdassak: 30%
It's worth noting also that in the past two years (Since the scheduler fix), the big 5, in matches over 1400 TV, have 39% of the total games played.
So depending on how "safe" you want to be with a floor, you could just throw half the games out, assuming the teams are two young or the coaches don't have clawpomb - which gives you at least 15% as being clawpomb matches. You can bet that mrt and Dunenzed (who play quite a lot of high TV) are seeing more than 15%, and depending on how you cut it you could call 20% or even 25% "reasonable" as well.
To me, it seems safer to guess at 1/5 of matches rather than 1/10 as being against clawpombers.
Okay, so I was right! Well, except that this stuff is so crude that maybe it's worthless. A few possible problems:
1) Underworld is not exactly a high TV clawpomb problem. You know, gobbos...
2) Lots of guessing and throwing out of matches. Someone with time to write a script could do a lot better.
3) Who cares if I face 1 clawpomber, it's the games against 3-5 clawpombers that are teh suck. Yep.
Anyway, I was curious so I futzed with it. Maybe someone will want to prove me wrong and dig up actual hard data... 
EDIT: @j, fair enough. I think that's a valid point, but I did not gather that nuance from your post. |
_________________
Come join us in #metabox, the Discord channel for HLP, ARR, and E.L.F. in the box!
 |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 04:46 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: | | happygrue wrote: | | But it really is a bit eye-rolly to say "you forum people that can't change anything, why haven't you changed anything?" |
that's not what i'm saying...
i'm saying more along the lines of "you forum people can't even get on the same page, how do you expect to make progress?"
--j |
Well there's two pages.
Either you think there's a problem or you don't.
It's actually quite a bit more simple than you think. People spend a lot of time arguing around the edges of pointlessness, but no one is really reading their stuff as actual suggestions.
Other than 'something should be done'.
And what to do? I said it, grue said it, plenty of options from minor to extreme to choose from.
The issue, is still, one of implementation. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 05:46 |
|
| PainState wrote: | I hear what you are saying BUT have you heard of the Box meta group called Human Premier League? They live and die by the MBPO combo.
You will get that same result by introducing some ideas into Box.
Also POMB is not minmaxing, it is the norm for all teams who cannot take CPOMB but take POMB on normal skill ups. In fact, I would say the dreaded TPOMB combo is found more often in Box than Ranked. |
Thanks, PainState. I agree that the phenomenon goes beyond Minmaxing, and I've seen enough games from the Vault Team Squad to have a fairly good idea how humans survive in Box. Minmaxing is where the phenomenon gets accute enough for Christer to write a post suggesting we nerf CPOMB. Teams with low TV and coachs with little experience have no counterthreat.
If you sift through Plasmoid's playbooks, you'll see that most of them urge players to develop at least one POMB killer. You have access to Strength skills - get yourself at least one. Heck, I have a rookie WEs team in League play who taste TPOMB every week! Add Frenzy to the mix for pure unadulterated fun. Just wait until warriors go for Tentacles to see how much fun Elves will have in the next five-ten FC Cups.
Mighty Blow is already tough for AV7 teams. PO on injury for low AV teams means you risk getting one lineman killed every game. Claw only forces this predicament to any conceivable team, including Treemen only.
It goes without saying that the first skill I took was Mighty Blow - my WD killed 4 guys in two games, after all...
***
There's little need to run any Monte Carlos to realize that facing 10-20 Blocks by killers two games in a row (a 20% odd if we accept Happygrue's estimate) can send your team to loner purgatory. And that's notwithstanding fouls on top of it, and of course all the heroic efforts you need to do to prove your sportsmanship. And please take this with a smile and don't ever consider conceding, that would only show how weak your true BB spirit is.
Winning may be everything, but the actual winnings simply don't compensate the likely rates of attrition we should expect just by looking at the games played in the current's FC. At the end of a day, a win in Box is +1 on a D6 and a boost of CR. There's really no need to add machismo to any of this.
Yet, I still praise Nuffle to have let Jarvis invent Him. |
Last edited by thoralf on %b %18, %2015 - %15:%Nov; edited 2 times in total |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 06:05 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: | that's not what i'm saying...
i'm saying more along the lines of "you forum people can't even get on the same page, how do you expect to make progress?"
--j |
We've been trying really hard for 75 pages to avoid that. That has to count for something right?  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 08:26 |
|
licker - I think a better matching algorithm would be a good start (TVPlus?). Also think that if the environment is the broken but then that is what should be fixed. Not that I am against roster and rule changes where needed (I would start with Zons!), I just don't think they are here. We could start with adding the option to reject matches in B in a limited way, maybe a couple of "free pass" tokens a day, or "free pass" tokens issued based on the number of matches played, or some combination, might work? I'm spitballing, but would certainly bring B closer to CRP.
Martin - I specifically said "challenges", not scheduled leagues. CRP page 31 refers.
Uedder - Thank you for the list, but that's a tiny sample size with no context. Sure, it might say it's worth entertaining the thought that it might be unbalanced, but further investigation with far larger sample sizes shows it's not. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 09:31 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | Also, Sprints kind of highlight the problem of variety, Sotomonte's Rotten Warriors of Decay has 4 wins against my Ogres in the most recent sprint. I have 6 losses against him in mine and that cover's the entirety of action. Each time we played I only activated my ogres in an attempt to complete the sprint and I presume he was building for a tourney or sprint, who knows, didn't ask.
http://cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/stats/results.html?sprintId=169&teamId=778569
But when over a third of my games are against one team by virtue of 4 people activating and the same coach no less, at that time of day, maybe there should be restrictor plates put on the Boxmobile. I don't see how an argument can be made that Bowlbot correctly (as in, that was the best fit as the function dictates) arranging that match 6 times contributes to the stated goal of 'random draws' or the idyllic state of there being decent variety in the Box.
Such a farce would presumably be less likely to happen if every coach was activating 3 teams per activation. Your aim of having a meaningful Sprints in the sense of achievement would also remain intact, in fact more so since things like Nurgs beating on Ogres 4/16 of their Sprint games wouldn't be as likely nor would one coach by virtue of their timezone enjoy such an advantage playing against a goofball like me. |
You keep drawing the same person because not many people are activating at the same time as you. If you didn't play him you would probably get no game at all.
| Balle2000 wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | As it stands, nothing. |
On this we fully agree.
But.
Will you join me in a vision like this: we somehow convince these 40-somethings ex-BBRC family guys to use their influence to create rule erratas to CRP, and hinging on whether Christer likes them (obviously un-nerfing Khemri along the way), we can have it implemented and things like my preferred playing-experience, and your ideal playing environment can be realized?
high five and kampai? |
You know how people are about "official". If GW do not sanction it a lot of people wouldn't touch it.
Christer seems to want to follow the NAF not the BBRC. Your BBRC guys don't seem to complain about having their names on Plasmoid's page. You know how people feel about that.
BBRC, NAF, Cyanide, Plasmoid. Take your pick.
Go crank this one up again. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - 19th June! ---- All Star Bowl XII - Teams of Stars - Sign up NOW! |
|
huff
Joined: Dec 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 09:50 |
|
| licker wrote: | | dode74 wrote: |
I don't think CPOMB is a broken combo, I think the B environment is broken. I also don't think the elven teams got a bad deal out of CRP - journeymen makes them much more viable long term. |
Agreed. So what is the solution to 'fixing' B?
To me it's not touching cpomb. It could be in redesigning certain rosters (but that's a tall order, and highly unlikely to happen).
Or, it needs to be in what the definition of B is, and that is something which the site can control and dictate without fear of trampling on any CRP fanatics toes.
Of course we've heard before that B isn't going to change, but then it did, so maybe it can still yet again. |
Wait what... You guys really don't think it's OP? C'mon man.... It's the reason why there isn't more diversity in box at high TV: The flock (meta) gravitates to what can win the most easily and most consistently. Not only the skill-stack but some rosters also need some attention... And other skills for that matter that are not taken due to being underwhelming. That's also apart of diversity, not just race, but how that race is built (skill selection). |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 09:58 |
|
| huff wrote: | | It's the reason why there isn't more diversity in box at high TV: The flock (meta) gravitates to what can win the most easily and most consistently. |
Except it doesn't in B. The teams which win most consistently are the elven teams according to the data. The "flock" in B are gravitating to the teams which survive most easily and dish out the most damage. |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 10:10 |
|
None of the top 5 winningest races in Blackbox are Elves. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 10:16 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | None of the top 5 winningest races in Blackbox are Elves. |
Apologies, I should have specified "at higher TVs". I don't think anyone would argue that CPOMB teams like Chaos and Nurgle are particularly good at lower TVs so I assumed that was huff's focus. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 10:23 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | huff wrote: | | It's the reason why there isn't more diversity in box at high TV: The flock (meta) gravitates to what can win the most easily and most consistently. |
Except it doesn't in B. The teams which win most consistently are the elven teams according to the data. The "flock" in B are gravitating to the teams which survive most easily and dish out the most damage. |
This felt to be through before, but does not feel to be true now. The evolution of team building passed a point. Elves do not have easy time winning anymore. 1300 TV simple pomb team is more than enough to crush them purely from the attrition point of view. And those pombers get tackle very quickly, ramping up spps in the killing process. Those team usually does not have any bloat at all.
And the bloat at TV box is not a given anymore.
Summary: I would play elves anyday in the box, and would feel good about the chances of winning against them. |
|
|
huff
Joined: Dec 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 10:24 |
|
Consistent like over period of time, not for one game. But idk I may be wrong, still doesn't help diversity. Flock seems to gravitate to the road of least resistance, i suppose that's why some will play on Cyanide.
58%... Cmon man.
@Koadah- Damn you and Woodstock for dropping old threads on us (that will read them)...I went through 5 pages of the one you linked but I just gotta stop. I dare not even go to TFF anymore, enough time spent here and I really can't relate to a lot of the TT-only players. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 10:25 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Balle2000 wrote: | | None of the top 5 winningest races in Blackbox are Elves. |
Apologies, I should have specified "at higher TVs". I don't think anyone would argue that CPOMB teams like Chaos and Nurgle are particularly good at lower TVs so I assumed that was huff's focus. |
Low TV chaos is a cherry for all the races i play, not just for elves. (Norse, Amazon, Necro, Undead, Orc)
So lets just eliminate this part of the argument. Elfs are not good for being able to beat some chaos. This is not a unique trait at all... |
|
|
huff
Joined: Dec 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 18, 2015 - 10:37 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Balle2000 wrote: | | None of the top 5 winningest races in Blackbox are Elves. |
Apologies, I should have specified "at higher TVs". I don't think anyone would argue that CPOMB teams like Chaos and Nurgle are particularly good at lower TVs so I assumed that was huff's focus. |
My focus is at higher TV so I must really be missing something... Percentage wise elves prolly do good at winning games, but how many of them do you see? And what about all the non-elf and non-cpomb... The other 14 teams... Idk, you're pro-58% removal rate spits really all moot.
Question- Everything else constant, which percentage removal rate would you deem kill stack OP? 59%? 75%? 5/6? |
|
|
|
|
| |
Finishing the 60 Gam...
Search
