| Poll |
| The New Rulz are: |
| Exactly what I wanted and predicted |
|
17% |
[ 14 ] |
| A sign the GW is getting the Blood out of BB |
|
13% |
[ 11 ] |
| A bit better than a piece of pie |
|
28% |
[ 23 ] |
| The final nail in the coffin of my hopes in humanity |
|
19% |
[ 16 ] |
| Par for the course |
|
20% |
[ 17 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 81 |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
 Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 00:38 |
 
|
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: | | Incorrect. The underdog can spend whatever they want, just that they have to overspend the current difference to make it worthwhile. |
Which part of "a few Ks" you don't get?
Talk about massive pedantry. |
I understand how the inducement systems work in both cases.
It appears you do not.
Else why would you mention teams with a million in the bank and then switch to 'a few ks'?
Of course 'a few ks' is a benefit to the underdog, but most matches don't play at ranges where 'a few ks' matter.
The crux of the issue is one about how this system allows for the overdog to spend their money and gain even more advantages over the underdog anyway. The only time that playing field is even is when both teams have the same amount of money to spend.
And of course that happens as much as it happens, but it's neither more or less likely than the cases where the overdog has more money. Indeed in cases of extreme TV gaps, and indeed in cases of new teams, it's highly unlikely that the underdog has extra money to spend on inducements, while it's far far more likely that the overdog will.
So again, this system is simply doing away with the notion that TV and petty cash are supposed to be the way to balance out large differences between teams.
Again, neither good nor bad, just stupid, with the usual caveat about why... |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 00:47 |
|
| licker wrote: | | Of course 'a few ks' is a benefit to the underdog, but most matches don't play at ranges where 'a few ks' matter. |
Of course not.
Let's assume wizards return. They're 150 K.
Let's assume that "a few Ks" means "less than 70K."
Let's also assume two teams, A and B.
A has 1950TV, B has 1860TV.
Under CRP, B can't even hire a mercenary with his petty cash.
Under DZ1, B can add 60K from his own Treasury to hire a wizard.
Which of the two systems is so stupid and unfair that it only deserves unreflexive scorn, again? |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 00:58 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: | | Of course 'a few ks' is a benefit to the underdog, but most matches don't play at ranges where 'a few ks' matter. |
Of course not.
Let's assume wizards return. They're 150 K.
Let's assume that "a few Ks" means "less than 70K."
Let's also assume two teams, A and B.
A has 1950TV, B has 1860TV.
Under CRP, B can't even hire a mercenary with his petty cash.
Under DZ1, B can add 60K from his own Treasury to hire a wizard.
Which of the two systems is so stupid and unfair that it only deserves unreflexive scorn, again? |
I can cherry pick scenarios which demonstrate exactly the opposite you realize. There is absolutely no value in presenting a hand made scenario and making any kind of claim about it.
But, just for funz...
The absolute difference between those teams is 90 the % difference is less than 5% Most coaches I would imagine wouldn't bat an eye at this 5% difference in TV, and the underdog wouldn't really be that bothered if they actually got no inducements at all.
How about you make it a 1000 team playing a 1090 team? That basically doubles the % gap. So when that 1000 rookie team has no cash to spend at all, and the 1090 team has 100k or 150k or whatever and they use it on a bribe or wizard or whatever...
Well, how you like dem apples? |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 01:11 |
|
| licker wrote: | | I can cherry pick scenarios which demonstrate exactly the opposite you realize. |
That scenario can be generalized to all cases where the underdog has enough Treasury change to add to the inducements and buy something useful.
There is absolutely no value in armwaving scenarios and drumpfully pretend they're the greatest descriptors of "most matches."
| licker wrote: | | this 5% difference in TV |
Neither system takes % difference into account.
How red do you like your herrings?
| licker wrote: | | So when that 1000 rookie team has no cash to spend at all, and the 1090 team has 100k or 150k or whatever and they use it on a bribe or wizard or whatever... |
Sure, that 1090 team will spend 150K on a (what 3rd) game vs a rookie.
To have a chance to win 10K + a Re-Roll on the D6 of winnings?
Just great. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 01:20 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: | | I can cherry pick scenarios which demonstrate exactly the opposite you realize. |
That scenario can be generalized to all cases where the underdog has enough Treasury change to add to the inducements and buy something useful. |
And so can any scenario where the overdog has more money to spend than the underdog.
| thoralf wrote: | | There is absolutely no value in armwaving scenarios and drumpfully pretend they're the greatest descriptors of "most matches." |
Um, duh? So what point are you trying to make again? I can look at data which shows what the median TV difference is without having to wave my arms at all! Ok, I have to move my hands so I guess my arms might wave a little.
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: | | this 5% difference in TV |
Neither system takes % difference into account.
How red do you like your herrings? |
You cannot possibly be so dense as to fail to comprehend the reason why a 90k TV gap being 4.7% of the teams TV difference and it being over 9% of the difference is relevant can you?
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: | | So when that 1000 rookie team has no cash to spend at all, and the 1090 team has 100k or 150k or whatever and they use it on a bribe or wizard or whatever... |
Sure, that 1090 team will spend 150K on a (what 3rd) game vs a rookie.
To have a chance to win 10K + a Re-Roll on the D6 of winnings?
Just great. |
Yeah, why the hell not? I mean you seem to enjoy these meaningless examples don't you? And who says that 1090 team is only 3 games in? Maybe they are ruthless min/maxers who now also get to obliterate you with their treasury.
I mean no one has ever intentionally played a 1000k TV min/max team. That's never happened. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 01:45 |
|
| licker wrote: | | So what point are you trying to make again? |
To refute your "most matches don't play at ranges where 'a few ks' matter," which is obvious bollocks.
That's why I quoted it. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Last edited by thoralf on %b %01, %2016 - %02:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 02:04 |
|
man. this is as much fun as the clawpomb thread |
_________________
 |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 02:39 |
|
Me and Licker could discuss Bloodweiser Babes and the result would be the same.
It shouldn't be so hard to say that minmaxers will exploit the new system to no end.
As if the old systems prevented them, or made their exploits fair-er.
Minmaxing is not a rule problem, it's a social problem. In a community centered around the freedom to do whatever one pleases, that's an even more acute problem. No set of rules will ever solve that for you.
That's why we have Commissioners.
Anywho. I'm done for a while. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 02:49 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: | | So what point are you trying to make again? |
To refute your "most matches don't play at ranges where 'a few ks' matter," which is obvious bollocks.
That's why I quoted it. |
I fail to see how a cherry picked hypothetical refutes anything, but hey, if all you ever play is theorybowl then good on you.
| thoralf wrote: | | Quote: | | I mean no one has ever intentionally played a 1000k TV min/max team. That's never happened. |
No against a rookie team.
Try again, this time with more feeling. |
Huh? No one has ever played a low TV min/max team against rookie teams?
Do you even B dude? |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 03:04 |
|
| licker wrote: |
I fail to see how a cherry picked hypothetical refutes anything |
There are lots of matches at ranges where a few Ks matter.
| thoralf wrote: | | Huh? No one has ever played a low TV min/max team against rookie teams? |
There are less matches like that than you presume.
But right, minmaxing *is* a problem, and I did misread you.
How is that CRP system working out to solve it, again? |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Last edited by thoralf on %b %01, %2016 - %03:%Dec; edited 2 times in total |
|
ignatzami
Joined: Aug 18, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 03:04 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | thoralf wrote: | | thoralf wrote: | | I haven't seen it mentioned yet. I'll update if I read it, as it's an important matter. |
OK, found it (DZ1, p. 1 :
| Quote: | | It is up to the Commissioner to decide how to run their league, and they are free to change or modify any of the Blood Bowl rules as they see fit. |
Eagerly awaiting when CPOMB fans will appeal to this clause, the very one I used against CPOMB itself in the CPOMB thread... |
Options, options, options.
Do we even have a programmer for the client? |
I'd be willing, but don't have source access. I could decompile the client but that's getting into ethically grey areas. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 03:11 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: |
I fail to see how a cherry picked hypothetical refutes anything |
There are lots of matches at ranges where a few Ks matter. |
And there are lots more where it doesn't, and or where the team for whom it might matter doesn't have the cash to do anything anyway, or doesn't want to spend it.
I'm not saying those matches don't exist, I'm saying that as many if not more which work against your hypothetical exist.
| Uedder wrote: | | thoralf wrote: | | Huh? No one has ever played a low TV min/max team against rookie teams? |
There are less matches like that than you presume. |
I don't presume that there are any particular number of them, merely that they exist, and that this new system will only exacerbate them.
| Uedder wrote: | | But right, minmaxing *is* a problem, and I did misread you. |
It happens, no worries.
| Uedder wrote: | | How is that CRP system working out to solve it, again? |
CRP was not designed to fix min/maxing was it? So neither is 2016, but 2016 introduces at least this rule which makes it seemingly more attractive.
The real question is how does 2016 fix min/maxing if you think that CRP introduced it.
And the answer is as I gave, it doesn't, it makes it worse, it practically legitimizes it with the seasons nonsense too. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 03:27 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | I can understand why you don't like that system, but I don't think it's any less fair than the one we had. |
Maybe you shouldn't discuss the topic if you are this ignorant. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 04:30 |
|
Guys, when I think of min-max, in blackbox (as it doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me elsewhere), it's teams around 1400 TV.
A 16-game season would only be pinching at teams up over 2000 TV, 1750 players + apo + FF + RRs. No one up there is really min-maxing, it's more max-maxing, always trying to get more skills and bench to handle the bash. |
_________________
  |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 05:49 |
|
Licker please stop quoting me for things i don't say! XD |
|
|
|
|
| |
NBFL Season 32: The ...
Search
