mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
 Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 17:21 |
 
|
Don't worry Dode, thoralf will summon you again when a Seasons Speculation thread goes up  |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 17:22 |
|
Sorry - someone somewhere said they were all linked |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 17:27 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Sorry - someone somewhere said they were all linked |
They are but until there is a firm implementation roadmap for seasons that affect the majority of the userbase, the kind of speculation about seasons we see is uninformed and not very useful. Sure seasons play a part in the overall design of the game but since we aren't playing with it right now and we have no idea when we will...
Best just focus on what we do know. |
|
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 17:57 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Don't worry Dode, thoralf will summon you again when a Seasons Speculation thread goes up |
It seems the massive seasons discussion thread from late last year has been forgotten already. Though after the first 15 pages most of the posts were from Licker and Thoralf. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 17:58 |
|
| garyt1 wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | Don't worry Dode, thoralf will summon you again when a Seasons Speculation thread goes up |
It seems the massive seasons discussion thread from late last year has been forgotten already. Though after the first 15 pages most of the posts were from Licker and Thoralf. |
That was more of a freakout! thread than speculation thread. But yes, the Thoralf-Licker Theorem was validated. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 18:52 |
|
Well I do think that the speculation that we are going to see a lot of teams elevating their TV over 3000 is insane. I base my insanity claim on the fact that I have attempted this Mount Everast like challenge 3 times with the Buccaneers and it crashed and burned. The highest I ever got to was around 2760TV.
Here are the challenges you face attempting to get to 3000TV.
#1 Having a high TV does not = a better team per se. It has been proven that teams do have sweet spots where they are the most competitive to win matches. No team has a sweet spot over 2200TV.
#2 If you agree with point #1 then that has eliminated around 98% of the players. They will not attempt the run to 3000TV because they are more concerned with having a viable and competitive team.
#3 Now the remaining 2% of players will have to overcome some hurdles on the way.
* They will need to run a 16 man roster...remember this is about TV and not how good your players are.
* You will have to run with massive perm damage. Retiring players lowers TV, increases the # of games you have to play to replace out the lost TV.
* Now with Gold not suffering SE any more, you can keep a stash of gold in the reserve to replace players BUT will that effect how you purchase any inducements?
*You are giving up HUGE amount of free inducement money
*Most coaches will not "pick" a team on GF with a TV of 2650. It will be harder and harder to find matches.
*Now that it is harder to find matches you are forced to play in Smacks, minors or majors. That in turn reduces your volume of total matches played which in turn drags this whole run to 3000TV into a slow grind.
There are around 10 other things I could enlighten you with but I think I have made my point.
It will be me and maybe 12 other coaches in Ranked making the sprint to 3000TV.
Box, you do not have to worry about it. The way the box works by nature makes it very hard to get to 3000+TV and will take a huge amount of time. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 19:02 |
|
The time commitment alone would preclude a lot coaches from getting there. The way the skill levels work, the harder it becomes to get to even higher heights - if you're at 2600ish you likely have a core of 6-7 51 spp+ players that will only contribute an additional 120-200 TV of skills but take that much more SPP to skill. Sure you can toss them MVP bones but once they're over the 76 spp threshold it'll be a super long time before they skill - but in general the 76spp players have prerequisite skills that lend themselves to spp accrual either scoring or bashing. I've experienced this first hand with Coca Loca where the TV is sticky due to the 3 legends at 2 superstars but the TV growth tapers off considerably. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 19:29 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | PC was there in LRB6. If we apply it here with A being the high TV team and B being the low, currently B would get the TV difference. If A adds X cash B gets difference + X. If B now adds Y cash (to dump it) what happens, because the TVs are no longer even? I can see the potential for confusion, but do think it could have been done much better than it has been now.
Yes, I saw some of the angst here last week. There is always going to be with a changeover of rules.
I think you can consider applying seasons to R and B. If we define a season as being n games long then a team redrafts after n games. There's no interaction between teams during redraft, and everything is based on that team's record and players so there's nothing mechanically stopping teams from redrafting at different times.
I think the question really is whether teams being at different points in their n-game cycle will be a problem. I don't think it will for R because picking, and I suspect whether it is an issue in B will largely depend on the distribution of TVs and development during the cycle - a narrow distribution will lead to fewer problems, and it can be made narrower by restricting n to a lower number (but not too low, because we need to be able to redraft). Furthermore, given the fact that the vast majority of teams won't (or rather currently don't) make it to n games where n is in the range suggested by BB2016 - around 14 games iirc (median games played in B is 5 iirc) - seasons won't actually have an effect on the majority of teams. Certainly there are potential issues with enabling (or indeed enforcing) minmaxing on older teams as they keep their stars and hire their rookies to make 11, but it would be interesting to see and I'd be interested in thoughts on that process. |
Well, seems we got here anyway. I'll stick my oar in again.
First of all since in the seasons thread we had last time around it was pretty clear I was against them in r/b type environments, I should be clear that I'm actually not against the idea of seasons as a concept.
In fact for an endless TT league or the like, I think they're a necessary development - it removes any social pressure to flip your team or cut TV, and the commish doesn't need to start up with rules that might make people play elsewhere.
I just don't like them for perpetual TV-MM. For a variety of reasons, the "point of season" is a big deal - you say in R, picking will fix/play around this. I disagree, I think it will emphasize it with a lot of the people who play R. We already have people who play 30% of their games vs Ogres and Goblins and the majority vs low CR coaches; that might "fix" their cash issues, but what about the guys on the other end of that? Do they just get new teams? Anecdotally, seasons has already proven rough for stunty teams on TT. In addition to that little tidbit - the guy picking his games like so isn't about to "fairly" pick someone in the same sort of n-game as him either.
So either you reduce the freedom of games (and the overall ability to get them) by making n-game something people are filtered by, or you accept it's going to be a potential problem too in R.
Then we come to B. First of all median games in B can be taken into account, but I actually think we should discard it - why? Because we have a great number of coaches who were chucking teams pretty quickly simply because even after five games you run into pomb. (Five is actually, funnily enough, "rookie protection").
We also have coaches who come into B and play there first because they are used to a scheduler system (vis a vis Cyanide/focus or really, any modern game) and that's familiar... then they get wrecked and either disappear to R or disappear full stop.
B teams are also more likely to have a "no apo" start than R in my experience... Basically, what I'm getting at here is simple: we have absolutely no idea why the median team length in B is 5 games.
In terms of completing Koadah's sprints, yes not a lot do it in comparison to overall population: but again we don't know why. I can speak for myself here and say in my part it's simply because I have far, far too many teams - I do this because I want an even spread, but also because I test rosters out, as well as ideas; and also simply because I may just fancy elfball one day and underworld the next, but I hate monoactivating.
Having teams with low games played, having many teams and not completing N games per X may not actually be indicative of preference for play but may currently reflect people having played to the (now-outdated) meta of B by trying to avoid lopsided draws or CPOMB.
Box also contains some of the longest lived or biggest teams/players on the site. Despite R being the "team-building" division.
If you go low N for seasons, you'll lose a just about everyone who wanted to play higher TV quite rapidly. That btw, makes up a substantial volume of each box draw these days. You also potentially turn low tv into a minmax swampfest, as you well can guess (and have alluded to).
If you set seasons high, you might as well not have them.
The other issue in my mind with seasons if you add them and get the numbers wrong is that you might reduce mid-tv attrition. Claw/mb is still a strong tool, and right now it's not hard for a chaos or nurgle squad to cut down dwarves and orcs (and av8 elves) - but if you introduce seasons that cut the M teams too early, then it's quite possible for them to end up in a slipstream of catching up: they'll always be skills behind and could end up just sitting in a mid-range point where they're consistently outbashed and never ever get to the point where they cut down their opponents. |
_________________
 |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 20:32 |
|
R + B = ?
Perpetual Environment = PE
Seasons = S
PE + S = Seasonal League Simulator Division = SLSD
Solved it. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 21:10 |
|
| Quote: | | the "point of season" is a big deal |
Well let's not get into it before someone starts the Season Speculation thread, but I think this is where we disagree. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 21:33 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | PE + S = Seasonal League Simulator Division = SLSD
Solved it. |
Scratch one S and I might consider. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 21:36 |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 22:33 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Quote: | | the "point of season" is a big deal |
Well let's not get into it before someone starts the Season Speculation thread, but I think this is where we disagree. |
Fair enough Dode.
I think we'll get that thread soon enough, because i have a sneaky suspicion that EM will murder enough teams that some people will see a re-draft as necessary for survival if you give them long enough. |
_________________
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 22:46 |
|
AD, go on about how EM will 'murder' teams |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 25, 2017 - 00:19 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Balle2000 wrote: | R + B = ?
Perpetual Environment = PE
Seasons = S
PE + S = Seasonal League Simulator Division = SLSD
Solved it. |
You are not going to get a division when you'll be able to do it in League. |
But then we have to deal with numerous annoying shills for leagues peddling their wares at every opportunity... |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
