PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
 Posted:
Dec 07, 2016 - 21:49 |
 
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | @PainState Are you factoring in the amount of seasons the players have played (for the re-buy "bribes")? |
I only have 2 players with 25+ games played on the roster.
Remember, there was that fiasco called the FUMBBL cup that reduced my team from TV 2300 to 1100.
    |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2016 - 21:55 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: |
A 600 TV rise over 16 games would be adding 37.5 TV per game. That's a lot of +ST and +AG mingled in with some Doubles. |
Well, the Bucs have 2 +ST and one +AG and two doubles.
The increase in TV comes from the fact that 11 of the 12 players have 2+ skills each. And the lone exception has 1.
The team is not 4 skilled up guys with 8 rookie chumps.
IMO based on what has happened in the last 16+ games since the disaster of the FUMBBL Cup and the fall out for the Buccaneers, is the ideal BB2016 playing with seasons is their team build. I think the ideal team then is one that goes the skill up all menz and to avoid the 4 stars + chumps formula. |
Yeah, but because skill levels aren't linear and you don't have 100% odds of skilling a player each game even with MVP selection I imagine that the TV rise between seasons' end will be a lot more subdued than anyone expects. The weighted TV probability of a skillup is around 24 TV. |
|
|
Hero164
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2016 - 21:59 |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2016 - 22:36 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | Remember, there was that fiasco called the FUMBBL cup that reduced my team from TV 2300 to 1100. |
That's the consequence from 1 game seasons  |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2016 - 22:52 |
|
| licker wrote: | | koadah wrote: |
I though your main complaint was that you couldn't get a Box game when you wanted to play. |
That may be my main complaint, but my point is that the CCL in BB2 is a perfect fit for seasons (though it runs 6 weeks), and it's 'better' (my opinion) because (most) everyone is playing for a specific goal.
Namely to qualify their team (one per race and 2 wild cards due to there only being 14 races in BB2 atm) for the KO tournament. There are also prizes, though not really big enough to be particularly interesting, but prizes none the less.
See here at FUMBBL there is no unified purpose to either R or B, they are just generic environments in which you play a game or 100. Which is totally fine, but it leads to issues like we have now, that since there is no unified point, everyone plays them how they want to play them, and then any time there is a change proposed all hell breaks loose because everyone thinks they should be something different from everyone else.
| Painstate wrote: | Of course depending on your TD+CAS total that will raise and lower that TV range. So, some teams will have a TV edge over other races due to the TD+CAS results and coaches skill level. Some coaches will not be able to generate a AVG TD+CAS total greater than 2.
|
This is another point which gets lost in the shuffle. Coaches who perform worse than average will wind up having their teams start at a lower point, and still be playing catch up. Even with changes to the inducement system and targeted MVPs and whatever else, the better coaches will continue to have advantages season after season.
I'm not sure those advantages will be enough to make a difference to player retention, but a guy who struggled to make 1.4M in the season when the average is 1.5M has a weaker team, and the guys who can consistently make 1.6+ will just continue to start stronger and finish stronger.
And yes, that's because having a higher TV than your opponent does correlate with a higher win%. |
Changes to the inducements harm worse coaches overall. Less winnings, end of the petty cash up to equal TV. BB2016 is basically a reverse handicap system. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2016 - 23:14 |
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: |
Changes to the inducements harm worse coaches overall. |
Oh, believe me I know. The thing is that people like to say that the dog getting petty cash can just top it off and that's the advantage the dog has. Thing is, the dogs, as seasons go on, are likely to be the less successful coaches anyway, and why are they going to have extra cash to blow compared to the overdogs who don't need to spend their cash as readily (because they are also more successful coaches).
| Matthueycamo wrote: | | Less winnings, end of the petty cash up to equal TV. BB2016 is basically a reverse handicap system. |
Well it might be less winnings if the win rate is affected, otherwise the actual winnings stays the same. Not sure what you mean by 'end of petty cash' though.
But I do think it's going to be harder and less fun for the less successful coaches, because their teams will suffer more cuts than more successful coaches. |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2016 - 23:19 |
|
End of petty cash up to equal TV I mean that a larger team can put treasury into petty cash and the lesser team does not get this as free cash. If I understand the process right. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Dec 07, 2016 - 23:36 |
|
| licker wrote: | | Matthueycamo wrote: |
Changes to the inducements harm worse coaches overall. |
Oh, believe me I know. The thing is that people like to say that the dog getting petty cash can just top it off and that's the advantage the dog has. Thing is, the dogs, as seasons go on, are likely to be the less successful coaches anyway, and why are they going to have extra cash to blow compared to the overdogs who don't need to spend their cash as readily (because they are also more successful coaches).
| Matthueycamo wrote: | | Less winnings, end of the petty cash up to equal TV. BB2016 is basically a reverse handicap system. |
Well it might be less winnings if the win rate is affected, otherwise the actual winnings stays the same. Not sure what you mean by 'end of petty cash' though.
But I do think it's going to be harder and less fun for the less successful coaches, because their teams will suffer more cuts than more successful coaches. |
Does anyone readily enjoy being the Cleveland Browns of Fumbbl? No? |
|
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 00:13 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | garyt1 wrote: | | JimmyFantastic wrote: | | Seasons are awful btw. I'm probs done with FUMBBL whatever happens but would love to see it thrive. |
You are fully converted to Cyanide? How come? Because of your video commentary stuff? |
A couple of reasons.
Biggest one is that I no longer have a crappy laptop. Playing FUMBBL on a proper monitor kills my eyes and makes it almost unplayable. If scaling up the client ever happens then I'll be back for something. |
True, the client size and lack of scaling is the worst thing about using FUMBBL. The higher res you go the worse it is. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 00:19 |
|
| tussock wrote: | Assumptions.
Based on 1000k + (TD+Cas) * 5k + Games * 10k + Treasury + FF.
|
Is this the exact formula in the new BB rules?
Can someone also post the cost formula. I mean including if there are extra costs for old players, if you have to/supposed to pay for fan factor, any cost for excess spp above a skill level etc.
Somewhat odd that a team that does 2 cas per game but loses a lot without scoring would get more money than a team winning games 1-0 but not cas'ing. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 00:22 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | A 600 TV rise over 16 games would be adding 37.5 TV per game. That's a lot of +ST and +AG mingled in with some Doubles. |
Hence my "may" in "may end up around 2200TV."
My point was simply that teams starting with 1600TV don't stay at 1600TV all season long. Not all teams will reach 2200, but some will.
I'm not sure I buy the "sweet 16 is like Sprint" argument. Sprints are the best sequence of 16 games within a month. This implies teams can play more than 16 games. It has nothing to do with the number of games teams should play before they enter downtime. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 00:33 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | A 600 TV rise over 16 games would be adding 37.5 TV per game. That's a lot of +ST and +AG mingled in with some Doubles. |
Hence my "may" in "may end up around 2200TV."
My point was simply that teams starting with 1600TV don't stay at 1600TV all season long. Not all teams will reach 2200, but some will.
|
Others have pointed this out as well, the teams starting at 1600TV have full rerolls, positionals, and whatever bench they likely want.
The growth to 2200, means 600k of skills. (yes I'm ignoring FF)
Now clearly that is possible in 16 games, but is it actually likely?
I'd suggest no, since the players being kept are probably already highly skilled (and even taxed more), so you're suggesting that multiple rookie scrubs will be built to multiple skills. You can argue that the MVP system encourages this, and that no PO means they will live longer, but 30 skills (less doubles and stats obvs...) in 16 games and assuming no retirements along the way...
That just doesn't sound like how the majority of seasons will go for the majority of teams.
So again, let's be honest about the likely outcomes of the system. Once you reset the teams to whatever the median TV winds up being (not all of them will come back at 1600...) you still have to deal with the vagaries of the dice to see which teams can actually grow to whatever level you are claiming is possible. And you know that it will not be possible for all teams to do this.
So really you're capping a larger number of teams at lower TVs than I think you give credit for. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 00:50 |
|
| licker wrote: | | thoralf wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | A 600 TV rise over 16 games would be adding 37.5 TV per game. That's a lot of +ST and +AG mingled in with some Doubles. |
Hence my "may" in "may end up around 2200TV."
My point was simply that teams starting with 1600TV don't stay at 1600TV all season long. Not all teams will reach 2200, but some will.
|
Others have pointed this out as well, the teams starting at 1600TV have full rerolls, positionals, and whatever bench they likely want.
The growth to 2200, means 600k of skills. (yes I'm ignoring FF)
Now clearly that is possible in 16 games, but is it actually likely?
I'd suggest no, since the players being kept are probably already highly skilled (and even taxed more), so you're suggesting that multiple rookie scrubs will be built to multiple skills. You can argue that the MVP system encourages this, and that no PO means they will live longer, but 30 skills (less doubles and stats obvs...) in 16 games and assuming no retirements along the way...
That just doesn't sound like how the majority of seasons will go for the majority of teams.
So again, let's be honest about the likely outcomes of the system. Once you reset the teams to whatever the median TV winds up being (not all of them will come back at 1600...) you still have to deal with the vagaries of the dice to see which teams can actually grow to whatever level you are claiming is possible. And you know that it will not be possible for all teams to do this.
So really you're capping a larger number of teams at lower TVs than I think you give credit for. |
As an addendum to this, there are two factors that diminish the accrual of TV as TV gets higher
1. Player SPP requirements grow non linearly to the next skill.
2. Because of skill synergies, there is more incentive to dedicate SPPs to the players who already have a leg up on the skill race. If given the option between skilling a 28 spp Catcher with Blodge and skilling a 3 SPP Catcher, usually you will select for the higher player because you can extract more in game value from them more often - actively using their skills or passively invoking decisions for your opponent to deal with less than ideal odds or outcomes.
Both of these things start rounding off how much TV you can add once you've baked in your core of players. |
|
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 01:08 |
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: | | End of petty cash up to equal TV I mean that a larger team can put treasury into petty cash and the lesser team does not get this as free cash. If I understand the process right. |
Lower TV teams still get free inducements right to account for pre-match TV differences right?
So a TV1000 team would get 100K of inducments available when taking on TV1100?
Just that more can be spent on top of that by either team with money without giving away more free money to the opponent. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 01:13 |
|
| garyt1 wrote: | | Matthueycamo wrote: | | End of petty cash up to equal TV I mean that a larger team can put treasury into petty cash and the lesser team does not get this as free cash. If I understand the process right. |
Lower TV teams still get free inducements right to account for pre-match TV differences right?
So a TV1000 team would get 100K of inducments available when taking on TV1100?
Just that more can be spent on top of that by either team with money without giving away more free money to the opponent. |
That sounds ridiculous. Am I missing something? |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - 19th June! ---- All Star Bowl XII - Teams of Stars - Sign up NOW! |
|
|
|
| |
Finishing the 60 Gam...
Search
