uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
 Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 13:53 |
 
|
If we are thinking of a solution, could one be found in the direction of educating us, the people, to play BB better?
I know that this sounds like school, but I guess some people like to learn new things. I for instance really liked to think of those better ways to make team have more value per TV as was discussed in the other (infamous) thread...
I also agree on Carnises point. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 14:01 |
|
| Carnis wrote: | | Cloggy wrote: |
let's be realistic though, the old TS system, while certainly better than TV for matchmaking, also wasn't perfect and the subject of much moaning. It's never going to be perfect and there will always be douches who stretch the rule to breaking point in order to gain an advantage they are not willing to play for. |
I most certainly disagree. The old TS threw me 12man ogres vs my near rookie chaos for rolling 3x claw (Without mb) and fielding a dirty player rather routinely. The old TS was WAY worse than current TV for matchmaking, and the popularity of B matchmaking after the change is living proof.
The one great point in favour of old TS is that, it was essentially copied & dumbed down by the BBRC to generate the current TV system. |
Was TS not a BBRC thing that was too complex to make the final rules that Christer altered and used? Although my history is rusty and that is likely an ugly approximation to reality, there is nothing new under the sun. 
I'm not sure I agree TV is the reason for Blackbox's continued popularity. We'll never know for sure, but I think beating Ranked to the punch and providing an uber killy environment where the glory combo gets games can't of hurt.
No team rating system will achieve perfection. I'm sympathetic to a return of TS, but I doubt the masses will ever be truly happy. |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 14:08 |
|
| Carnis wrote: | | The old TS was WAY worse than current TV for matchmaking, and the popularity of B matchmaking after the change is living proof. |
Haha, you got to be kidding me? You forgot the old matchmaking was based on TR and TS? It would be like matchmaking with TV and TW now.
Also the popularity of B has nothing to do with that... But that is not for this thread. |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | | Was TS not a BBRC thing that was too complex to make the final rules that Christer altered and used? |
No, it wasn't. TS was something I built based on the old player value formula, and added lots of modifications and tweaks to with the help of a large number of coaches. |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 16:55 |
|
| Carnis wrote: |
I most certainly disagree. The old TS threw me 12man ogres vs my near rookie chaos for rolling 3x claw (Without mb) and fielding a dirty player rather routinely. The old TS was WAY worse than current TV for matchmaking, and the popularity of B matchmaking after the change is living proof.
The one great point in favour of old TS is that, it was essentially copied & dumbed down by the BBRC to generate the current TV system. |
soooo....
your opinion that TS is horrid is due to one bad matchup?....
while any proof stating that either TV or TS is a better format is completely 100% anecdotal, and there's too many factors to take into account to truly determine which is better, you can look at raw facts regarding each system to make a general(admittedly slightly opinionated) assumption about which is better....
i don't think anyone can come up with a legitimate argument that claims a diving catch+pass block combo is on equal footing to dodge+block...i think it's a safe assumption that dodge+block is a more powerful combo...
under TV rules....diving catch+pass block is weighted identical to dodge+block....
under TS rules...diving catch+pass block is weighted weaker than dodge+block...
that's the beauty of TS...it was one of the very few things that this site had control over to help balance a ruleset that had a few issues....with the new ruleset, we have no control, without going full blown house rules, which Christer has stated, for accessibility purposes, is not really an option...
TS allowed us to tweak the formulas to balance things out a little bit, so that overpowered combos were given proper weighting, to make things more even...
(and before anyone goes there, this is not a defense or argument against rewarding/punishing skill choice, so let's just leave that discussion for another thread)
if TS was present in LRB6, we could, for example, tweak out clawbomb to give it more weight than everything else, and curb some of the gross imbalanced matchups that people decide to enforce on the box...we have no such option with TV....
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 17:01 |
|
Concern would be that adding more value to clawpomb will just mean they draw higher tv opponents.
Perhaps the only thing worse than fighting a clawpomb is giving up inducements to fight that clawpomb.
__Synn |
|
|
Carnis
Joined: Feb 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 17:19 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: | | while any proof stating that either TV or TS is a better format is completely 100% anecdotal |
I find myself agreeing with shadow! First for everything I guess...
| shadow46x2 wrote: | | i don't think anyone can come up with a legitimate argument that claims a diving catch+pass block combo is on equal footing to dodge+block...i think it's a safe assumption that dodge+block is a more powerful combo... |
Yes, though Smurf from TFF will post indefinitely in defense of pass block -- but relevance to matchmaking?
Diving catch + pass block will be poor skill choices irrelevant of the cost of said skills and it comes down to your argument that you don't want to have about punishing/rewarding skill choices. |
|
|
Tarabaralla
Joined: Jul 24, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 17:24 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: | if TS was present in LRB6, we could, for example, tweak out clawbomb to give it more weight than everything else, and curb some of the gross imbalanced matchups that people decide to enforce on the box...we have no such option with TV....
--j |
TS wasnt present in any LRB. TS is a Blackbox issue. Let's keep things clear. We all know we're going to go on with LRB6, both lovers and haters, but TS is NOT a rule modifier, it's a part of the match arrangement system in Blackbox.
Anyway, I agree  |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 18:03 |
|
| Carnis wrote: | | shadow46x2 wrote: | | i don't think anyone can come up with a legitimate argument that claims a diving catch+pass block combo is on equal footing to dodge+block...i think it's a safe assumption that dodge+block is a more powerful combo... |
Yes, though Smurf from TFF will post indefinitely in defense of pass block -- but relevance to matchmaking?
Diving catch + pass block will be poor skill choices irrelevant of the cost of said skills and it comes down to your argument that you don't want to have about punishing/rewarding skill choices. |
while yes, diving catch+Pass block is an exagerrated skill combination, to help get the point across, the actual point itself does still stand...
some skills, as well as combinations, are arguably stronger than others...and i only say arguably, because *every* skill & combination can be argued as powerful to *someone*....you even proved that with your reference to smurf's pass block defense...
to gauge them all equal to each other is a failure in the TV system...it was even a small failure in the TS system, but at least with TS, we could fix that if it became an issue, which history has shown has happened occasionally....both the problem and the fix..
the whole reason why i want to avoid the discussion of rewarding/punishing skill choices, is because it's a pretty big red herring...some skills are just better than others, and despite each having its place somewhere in the system, that doesn't mean that they should be valued equally to others...
| Tarabaralla wrote: | | shadow46x2 wrote: | | if TS was present in LRB6, we could, for example, tweak out clawbomb to give it more weight than everything else, and curb some of the gross imbalanced matchups that people decide to enforce on the box...we have no such option with TV.... |
TS wasnt present in any LRB. TS is a Blackbox issue. Let's keep things clear. We all know we're going to go on with LRB6, both lovers and haters, but TS is NOT a rule modifier, it's a part of the match arrangement system in Blackbox.
Anyway, I agree |
hi, i don't know if we've officially met...i'm shadow...i've been here since 2003...
i'm well aware of the history behind TS, and the functionality...
it's not a blackbox issue...it's a tool to help evaluate matchups, and was used in every division...
i didn't state anything about modifying rules....it allows the site to modify the value of a skill in regards to the TS system...for example, when christer modified the reroll & pro value rules after the 0RR+Pro debacle...
and with that power, it allows the site to, on some level, be able to handle problems that could otherwise only be addressed by hardline rules, or LRB modifications....
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
|
|
cameronhawkins
Joined: Aug 19, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 20:22 |
|
I've been reading this thread, and I had some thoughts--
I am sympathetic to Tarabella's argument, although I disagree on some points. I will note that I am fairly new to FUMBBL, and I have no experience with "TR", although I can loosely surmise how it operated.
However, both me and Tarabella would agree that the Block/DivingTackle/SideStep Skink, while useful, is not exactly the equivalent of our death-dealing Marauder friend. Both of us feel that the skink is over-valued.
However, I think that classifying value by skill category (as he suggests) is hardly better than the existing system, and sometimes worse.
For example, Block and Dodge are both excellent skills on nearly any player, and well worth at least 20k, regardless of the player's skill access.
Here's a different comparison, though-
Stack up a DivingTackle/SideStep/Sprint/JumpUp Skink (140k) next to our Marauding man. Current rules say that the skink is a more valuable player than the killer. However, most people would agree that this is false. Why is this?
The answer is obvious: The skink's skills are simply not as good as those of the Marauder. Yet, they are calculated the same. Therefore, to remedy this, there are two possible solutions:
either [1] the game's skills need to change to be balanced against their equivalent cost (extremely unlikely), or [2] the costs of those skills need to be balanced against their general usefulness (conceivable). I think this latter option is a good idea to explore. I'm also sure I'm not the first to suggest this sort of thing, but I bet I'm the first person this hour, so I'll post.
To provide both a starting-point and clarity on my part, I will say that I only suggest the most simple of value-categories, something like
Bad Skills - 10k
Marginal Skills - 20k
Good Skills - 30k
I will also acknowledge that this is not the simplest question in the world. A skill that is "bad" is not the same as a skill that is more narrowly useful. Tackle is great skill. Tentacles is also a great skill. One is a common first-pick, the other is a fourth or fifth pick. Personally, I might value these at the same TV.
But some skills are simply worse (or approximately worse) than others. Strong Arm is worse than Accurate. Sprint is worse than +MA. But for the overwhelming majority of players, this comparison is not reflected in the TV cost incurred. Simply put, this is sloppy design. Of course, playing any game, you have to be prepared to handle some degree of fuzzy equivalency-- it's expected. But the fact that conversations keep coming back to the overpowering presence of Blodge on the Amazon team, or Claw/MightyBlow/PilingOn on a Chaos team strongly implies that "all singles = 20K, all doubles = 30k" is an approximation whose fuzziness undermines the integrity of the design.
And it's all about skill-value, let's be very clear on this point-- Dwarves are often considered an unbalanced team, but not because they have a Deathroller or because they all have armor 9, it's because of their skills. They start with a superfluity of Block and Tackle and the perception is that these skills are simply improperly represented by their TV. Similar things can be said about other teams. And I would go a step further and say that virtually all discussion on balance and degenerate team-building can be reduced to the fact that certain skills are improperly valued in TV.
Also note that differences in the value of individual skills this is not a new idea in Blood Bowl design: In addition to the existing TV incursions from singles/doubles/stats, Jervis's Cost Formula for Team Creation lists certain skills at different values. For example, the formula dictates that Block should add 30k to the player's cost, whereas Thick Skull should only add 10k. (Is there anyone who would dispute that this is good design?)
Furthermore, roster balance decisions for the last couple editions of the Living Rule Book have consisted largely of simply tweaking certain player costs by 10k. If that is a meaningful balancing tool, then surely the same can be said of adjusting skill values. Also, note that tweaking with the value of various skills and stat-increases is itself a young element of the ruleset.
Lastly, if interest is there, this kind of value system makes it easy to incorporate rare skills into the upgrade menu. (And this might be my post's obligatory pipe-dream, but what a sweet and simple dream it would be.) On a suitable roll, a player having to option to gain Hypnotic Gaze at 40K or Stab at 50k. This would take nothing from the game, but add elegance, variety, and excitement.
Overall, here are the benefits, as I see it, to moving toward this kind of revaluation--
1) It makes Team Value a better indication of team strength. (More equal match-ups = More fun)
2) It gives the game strategic depth when selecting skills. (Less trivial choices = More fun)
3) Due to the previous point, a broader range of skills would be found on rosters. (More variety = More fun)
4) All current problems of skill-value can be quickly solved (Less discontent = More fun)
5) Future skill-related balancing requires merely adjusting these values, rather than messy errata of individual skills. (Less grumbling = More fun)
Here are how those benefits play out--
1) People have a better time on FUMBBL, in all divisions, and are less likely to feel that their games one-sided due to uneven match-ups.
2) Autopilot skill-choices (e.g. "Your first skill on every lineman should be Block") would be evolved into more team-specific choices.
3) Interesting, but relatively weak (and rarely-chosen) skills such as Shadowing, Dump-Off, or Kick-Off Return would see more play.
4) With Claw valued at 30k and Fend at only 10k, counter strategies become more viable, and team variety increases.
5) If any future skill becomes too dominant, simply do some research or a referendum, and up its price 10k. The machinery is already there.
Currently, Claw and Very Long Legs are valued the same by all players who can take them. This is patently absurd from a design perspective. Does anyone think otherwise?
I'll leave you with this hypothetical-- If one were to poll the top 500 coaches from both FUMBBL and the NAF and asked them to categorize all skills into values of 30k, 20k, or 10k, does anyone think that there wouldn't be near-universal agreement on where each skill was placed? And if, hypothetically, this value system was implemented, does anyone not think that the game would improve immediately?
Them's my thoughts. Maybe I'll blog 'em. |
Last edited by cameronhawkins on %b %29, %2012 - %20:%Feb; edited 2 times in total |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 20:27 |
|
| Christer wrote: | | Purplegoo wrote: | | Was TS not a BBRC thing that was too complex to make the final rules that Christer altered and used? |
No, it wasn't. TS was something I built based on the old player value formula, and added lots of modifications and tweaks to with the help of a large number of coaches. |
Aha. Roger that, chief. Knew I'd mullered history somewhere! About 5% right. Not bad. |
|
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 20:28 |
|
another brick in the wall (of text) |
_________________
 |
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 21:26 |
|
I'm sort'v curious as to what aspect of the current system you're taking issue with. I'll elaborate:
1) Bashy teams aren't inherently winning machines - agility teams tend to win more, even in Box, consistently across TV levels. To change the matching system you need to be compensating for something.. so... what are you compensating for, if the win percentages aren't out of whack under TV matching?
2) Minmaxing has been declared to be an issue by the site administration. I'm not saying that in a bitter tone, just saying that it is more a houserule than anything else - it stays within the rules of the game and is actually an efficient way of improving performance within the Box paradigm. It is definitely something specific to TV matching, and if it needs to be solved there are easier ways (mathmatically) to do so.
3) BB was never designed to have matchups be even between different races even at the same TV.. which, I suppose, could beg the question of "why have TV at all if you don't mean it to measure an objective, relative power level?".
And now I've lost my train of thought... normally I'm sleeping at this ungodly noon-ish hour  |
|
|
gpope
Joined: Jun 04, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 21:55 |
|
I'm extremely interested in the idea of a more accurate team-matching formula, but I think this might be the wrong way to go about it. The reason that TV is so min/maxable isn't so much the power of individual skills, because people generally take good skills to begin with and no skill is all that powerful by itself. The bigger issue is that it's just more efficient to stack skills on a single player than it is to spread them around, because they work so much better in tandem.
TR and TS both tried to account for this, but TR's SPP counting wound up counting a lot of SPPs that didn't actually contribute to a team, and TS got really complicated while still leaving some inaccuracies.
I think the simplest way to tone down the min/maxing issue would just be to make the 4th, 5th, and 6th skills on a player add an extra +20k TV. The standard min/max template of 4 or 5 superstars and 7 rookies would be rated around 160-200k higher and wind up with much less one-sided matchups. There are some more tweaks you could probably make, but this would curb the worst min/max abuses in one stroke without getting overly complicated. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 29, 2012 - 21:59 |
|
I think I agree with gpope; one of my biggest issues with playing in Box is that, if I lose a well developed player, my team overall still has a lot of skill; and so I am likely to play against teams that also have well developed players, whereas I suddenly have a rookie on the team.
So for any TS style approach that I would be interested in would specifically try to address the issue of multiple superstars/legends on the opposing team, when I only have 1 or 2 learned skills on my best player.
Of course this doesn't deal with the 4 skill skink vs clawpomb marauder. So, we do need something more out of the deal. |
|
|
|
|
| |
BB2016 Ranked, Leagu...
Search
