Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
 Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 07:00 |
 
|
And we can still disagree and try to present why we believe the environment that will prevail in bb2020 will be different enough to warrant changing that position. |
|
|
Gartch
Joined: Sep 07, 2012
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 08:02 |
|
| Uber wrote: | | Christer wrote: | | With the environment being as it is on FUMBBL, it simply doesn't work and strict TV scheduling is the best way I've found so far. |
From page 36. So yeah, number of games matching is not happening. |
Sorry Uber but I don't understand this Christer quote as you.
I understood Christer said that CR pairing does not work.
It seems to me this statement was not about number of matchs pairing.
Also as other said before, the number of matchs does not need to be exactly the same.
If we compare to TV match making, with "older" rules, with 10TV increments, from TV1000 to TV2000, there are 100 different possible values.
From 0 matchs to 14 matchs, there are only 15 different possible values, even if you make a seperate case for 1st season teams, it's still only 30 different values, way less than 100, and it's even not to mention than TV can be lower than 1000 and higher than 2000.
So if pairing via number of matchs played in a season does not work, I don't really understand why. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 08:02 |
|
We're gonna break the system.  |
|
|
Gartch
Joined: Sep 07, 2012
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 08:15 |
|
To complete my previous post:
Also I did not ask for a pairing based solely on number of matchs played in a season by teams. I would like to get a pairing system based mostly and first on the number of matchs played, then on TV (as secondary criteria). |
|
|
ClayInfinity
Joined: Aug 15, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 09:03 |
|
| Gartch wrote: | To complete my previous post:
Also I did not ask for a pairing based solely on number of matchs played in a season by teams. I would like to get a pairing system based mostly and first on the number of matchs played, then on TV (as secondary criteria). |
I agree with this... if your team enters the Box Scheduler, then you're paired with teams on a +/- of say 1 match... so if you've played 10 games, you will be possibly matched with teams who have played 9, 10 or 11 games.
Then, if needs be, TV is used if there are multiple options.
I do think the generally lower TV, the ability for coaches to manage their conversion of SPP into skills, the fact that some skills may be random (and hence cheaper), coupled with the more options of spending Inducement money (including Prayers of Nuffle), I think overall there will be much variety in the games.
If we ONLy use TV, then you will basically encourage min/maxing and SPP hoarding in my opinion and then each game will be more or less the same as inducments will be under utilised.
Personally, I had one of my best Box matches in ages last night when my Orcs took on Malmir's Snotlings and he had 350k to spend. And the match ended in a 0-0 draw! I dont think we should be fearful of being underdogs. |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 10:27 |
|
We've been thru most of this stuff already. Matching by number of games played in the current season, I mentioned about 20 pages ago or something
It seems pretty obvious, it fits/matches the BB2020 rules better and it's a way to make [C] into one giant perpetual League
(R and B currently are more like a ladder)
Some rosters will be able to grow faster and therefore change in relative strength as their season goes on
This is what would happen in a tabletop league with seasons, so I think it is totally fine.
It's good even; as it lends a different element to the meta. It'll be a refreshing change from which teams can minmax the best
Anyway, SPP banking is real and possibly viable because it makes your player cheaper to redraft.
But it does have a Net Present Value type loss, in that you'll have to play without that benefit for the remainder of the season
Also, there's a cap: if you reach the point where you could afford a +stat, you have to take an Advancement |
|
|
Rawlf
Joined: Jul 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 11:42 |
|
| tussock wrote: | | I think teams will be feature complete by 5-7 games in. Probably would work well as minimising a collective (A+B+2)/(MIN(A;B)+1) sort of equation, where 0-game vs 1-game is as "bad" as 6-game vs 13-game, or 2-game vs 5-game. |
This would be a good start imho. It is really mostly the first few games that need a little extra care when drawing matches, because in a league, teams would be starting out very similar at the beginning of the season and then develop widely different through spending money and spp or hoarding spp and taking casualties.
I would very clearly not include TV into the matchmaking.
The rules give zero hint towards doing so. In a league, it does not matter at all what your TV is. You just play your schedule. It is kind of the whole point of a league schedule and the foundation for the metagame of skill shopping and redraft preparations.
Also, using TV in the hope of finding "good" matches is deceiving once you look at buying inducements for cash. Teams will earn more cash than they need to save up for redrafting, especially high av, regen bashers. So they will buy overdog inducements, which are not mirrored by free extra inducements for the opponent as they are now. So an equal TV match might turn out to be very mismatched if one side decides to open the warchest. Which will be all the more likely if they dont even plan on playing the next season.
This whole TV-centered view seems very old rules to me. If we want to embrace BB20, we will have to let go of it imo. |
|
|
ClayInfinity
Joined: Aug 15, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 12:23 |
|
| Rawlf wrote: |
I would very clearly not include TV into the matchmaking.
The rules give zero hint towards doing so. In a league, it does not matter at all what your TV is. You just play your schedule. It is kind of the whole point of a league schedule and the foundation for the metagame of skill shopping and redraft preparations.
Also, using TV in the hope of finding "good" matches is deceiving once you look at buying inducements for cash. Teams will earn more cash than they need to save up for redrafting, especially high av, regen bashers. So they will buy overdog inducements, which are not mirrored by free extra inducements for the opponent as they are now. So an equal TV match might turn out to be very mismatched if one side decides to open the warchest. Which will be all the more likely if they dont even plan on playing the next season.
This whole TV-centered view seems very old rules to me. If we want to embrace BB20, we will have to let go of it imo. |
+1 to all the above... I too think TV is no longer relevant given the rebuilding and the ability to delay TV growth via spp banking |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 12:33 |
|
|
mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 14:13 |
|
| Rawlf wrote: |
I would very clearly not include TV into the matchmaking.
The rules give zero hint towards doing so. In a league, it does not matter at all what your TV is. You just play your schedule. It is kind of the whole point of a league schedule and the foundation for the metagame of skill shopping and redraft preparations.
|
But in a league you know your upcoming opponent's team while doing your team management. The regular non league game in ever blood bowl set includes two rookie teams with potentially even TV facing off. So using TV for matchmaking simulates that kind of play the most. |
_________________
 |
|
Rawlf
Joined: Jul 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 14:46 |
|
Indeed, the first decision you have to make is whether you want to model things using the rules for Exhibition games or League fixtures as a base. I asumed league as that allows progression. |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 14:55 |
|
"The regular non league game in ever blood bowl set includes two rookie teams with potentially even TV facing off. So using TV for matchmaking simulates that kind of play the most."
Not really.
BB2020 includes regular league games with progression and no mention of TV matching
The other optional method is Exhibition games without progression. They don't have to be rookie, instead it encourages taking skills, extra budget, and suggests 1100-1300 TV with 1150 being ideal
So assuming you want progression,
[L] League division will let you play a small contained group of coaches that keep their seasons in sync and you know who is next opponent, and won't have TV matching, but may adjust their caps for redraft etc, (which is very close to BB2020 tabletop leagues)
And the new [C] division will be like that except:
You won't know who is next opponent
Season duration is team by team, you play at your own pace
The rebuy cap will be set by Christer
Matching criteria TBCBC (to be confirmed by Christer)
I like the idea of it being a giant perpetual league that we're all in together.
It also makes matchmaking potentially much easier- just pair by games-played in current season, instead of the complicated current Box formula with its weightings and so on |
Last edited by Sp00keh on Sep 09, 2020; edited 2 times in total |
|
Gartch
Joined: Sep 07, 2012
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 15:13 |
|
| mekutata wrote: | | Rawlf wrote: |
I would very clearly not include TV into the matchmaking.
The rules give zero hint towards doing so. In a league, it does not matter at all what your TV is. You just play your schedule. It is kind of the whole point of a league schedule and the foundation for the metagame of skill shopping and redraft preparations.
|
But in a league you know your upcoming opponent's team while doing your team management. The regular non league game in ever blood bowl set includes two rookie teams with potentially even TV facing off. So using TV for matchmaking simulates that kind of play the most. |
In a league you have no interest in keeping your TV low, in a TV matchmaking system you have, and with the new rules I expect to be even more so (because of the new spp/skills system).
And I'm afraid the Box would be full of extreme mid/maxed team with almost no skill. (because from TV perspective it's better to not choose but get skill at random, and fire the playe if you don't get the skill you want (that is: 11/12 odds to fire the player) |
|
|
ClayInfinity
Joined: Aug 15, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 15:14 |
|
Other than the issue you dont know your next opponent, a "game number matching" process will best reflect the rules.
Perhaps if you can nominate to enter the scheduler "unreadied" you could add skills via cashing in SPP to your team in the pre-match phase?
Having said that, other than mass taking Tackle vs an Amazon opponent or mass taking say Claw vs a Dwarf team, there wouldnt be too many exploits here. And really, would you then spend all your SPP mid season to win that one game and then perhaps lament some other skills in the match following? |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2020 - 15:20 |
|
Clay, I don't like that idea but it would fit - because if you do spend spp for your next matchup, you could lament later, yes. This mirrors what would happen in tabletop or league with known opponent schedule |
|
|
|
|
| |
BB2016 Ranked, Leagu...
Search
