dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
 Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 10:39 |
 
|
| Wreckage wrote: | How about this one:
For every 100k you have, you earn 10k less per game. Kind of a simple 10% tax that doesn't affect TV. You will not be robbed of your treasury or be forced to discard it in some way but as your warchest grows in size you eventually won't be able to grow in value anymore. (At around 500-600k) |
I don't think that achieves the aims. The aims are to:
1. Soft cap TV through making replacement of lost players more difficult as TV increases.
2. Not punish low TVs and allow low-TV teams the cash to replace players.
500-600k is plenty of cash to allow replacements at any TV, particularly as teams which lose fewer and/or cheaper players will be topped up to 500-600k again pretty fast. I think that rate of cash loss has to be linked to TV in order to achieve the aims above. |
|
|
Bloodfeast
Joined: Sep 02, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 10:43 |
|
1. In general, No! I Think it is quite a good balance between skill/random as it is right now.
2. No. I like that it is more expensive to "hire" a player/inducement for just 1 game instead of owning something for a long term like it is in real Life. The loner is also a great way to fit the fluff.
3. I really dont have a problem with it since we all can use it....or not! Just like passing, leap or any other skill out there. If it was that major all players would be buildt as killers, but all teams have their skillset in order to win and most games are won by scoring most TD´s, not casaultys 
5. Ofcourse Everything can be better, so I like that Everything is looked upon once in a while but Im satisfied with the TV as it is right now.
8. Yeah, I Think starplayers would be in a more correct pricerange, since they already are in a negative way with löners. Or, it may have suited better if they affected fanfactors in a positive way, then maybe....
9. Nah! maybe for a "fairness" factor but first I dont Think it is possible to achive without adding so many rules it spoils the fun and casual play and second I like to play with teams that are not up to standard, cause when they win, it is more fun.
10. Well, yeah, but no! Personally I would have more speed, more blood, more randomness and more of Everything but in the end, would the game be better? No. It would take away 75% of the teams and make everyone play elfs. Whats the fun in that in the long run? I like the challenge to play as dwarf vs elfs or with slann vs chaos and it still comes down to skill in order to win the games, and not by how fast players you got.
11. Nope! Not without destroying other vital parts of the game....
12. I like the idea of aging but how it will be implemented is still convincing to me....yet.
13. More secret weapons, pls 
14. Some players whink that wizards are the best inducement in the game, others dont so I Think it fits in quite nice as it is right now
16. Actually I Think it could be even more random. Or, I like it as it is right now. But, I remember when I started to play here the first time in 2009 (or something) there was some kickof tables that where just great. Almost Everything could happend, and I miss that alot. Maybe not in a "serious" enviroment as in the black box but I would love to see it in some Leagues. I kept you on your toes and every game was totaly different from the one Before. |
_________________
https://fumbbl.com/p/group?op=view&group=11638 |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 10:58 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Wreckage wrote: | How about this one:
For every 100k you have, you earn 10k less per game. Kind of a simple 10% tax that doesn't affect TV. You will not be robbed of your treasury or be forced to discard it in some way but as your warchest grows in size you eventually won't be able to grow in value anymore. (At around 500-600k) |
I don't think that achieves the aims. The aims are to:
1. Soft cap TV through making replacement of lost players more difficult as TV increases.
2. Not punish low TVs and allow low-TV teams the cash to replace players.
500-600k is plenty of cash to allow replacements at any TV, particularly as teams which lose fewer and/or cheaper players will be topped up to 500-600k again pretty fast. I think that rate of cash loss has to be linked to TV in order to achieve the aims above. |
You forget that treasury is already tied to TV. It's called spiraling expenses. The only abuse is that you could in theory accumulate so much money that SE don't matter. A wealth tax would archive exactly to prevent that without the negative side effects of punishing teams for not wasting all their money. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 11:06 |
|
Ah, I thought you meant instead of SE rather than alongside it. My bad. |
|
|
Rawlf
Joined: Jul 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 11:07 |
|
Just dropping in to say that i'm a huge fan the 'Peaking' idea from page 5 or what. The more I think about it, the more I like it!
Also, linking SE to the treasury rather than the income sounds absolutely brilliant to me! |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 11:39 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | harvestmouse - actually the data can show you all those things. The question is whether or not they are relevant to the game being "broken". The last one, if it means "winning with CPOMB is easy", would absolutely show up in the data as an excessively large win% with such teams. |
How would it? If I only played CPOMB rosters and averaged 55% it wouldn't show up at all. Especially as it'd take a while to get a winning %.
What was that Italian piece of trash that got banned for sharing his account with Tuamadre? Who was averaging around 38%, before he started playing Zons in Ranked and CPOMB in box. Within a year he was averaging 70% across the 2 divisions.
This is pretty eye opening to me to be honest. I really didn't think that the combo being broken was up for debate. All I thought was up for debate was whether or not something should be done about it.
Personally and this is just personally. If the data isn't showing CPOMB to be broken..........then that's a backs up my reasoning that data isn't worth the spreadsheet it's imputed on.
Hell.....this isn't even a topic I feel that strongly about and even I'm backing up the CPOMB haters on this one. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 11:54 |
|
| Quote: | | How would it? If I only played CPOMB rosters and averaged 55% it wouldn't show up at all. Especially as it'd take a while to get a winning %. |
You seem to be saying that it should be a 55% at each point in the lifetime rather than a lifetime 55%. If you're getting 30% at low TV and 70% at high TV then it's not broken at all: it's working as intended because the metric for balance for a roster is lifetime win percentage. You might not like that intention, but then we're back to preference rather than "objectively broken". While it is entirely possible to grow a team which does well at high TV and have it give you personally a high win percentage, the teams are not balanced around you personally (or any individual), but around what is actually happening overall, and overall there isn't an issue (except perhaps in MM).
One person winning more with CPOMB teams doesn't make them broken. Some people play better with some rosters than with others. I know I play conservative bash (orcs, for example) far better than I play the agi teams, but that doesn't mean anything outside the context of the overall data.
| Quote: | | Personally and this is just personally. If the data isn't showing CPOMB to be broken..........then that's a backs up my reasoning that data isn't worth the spreadsheet it's imputed on. |
You need to SHOW it is broken. Otherwise you're simply asserting that it is. If the data doesn't back up your reasoning then you have to accept that your opinion isn't supported by evidence, and you need to find evidence to support it.
Shall we do this elsewhere to keep this thread on track? |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 12:04 |
|
Ok, Dode, going back to that poll again .. so, even if we assume the errors are huge (which I still think is unlikely, given the simplicity of the question) and the accurate result is more like 40%/40%, it still points towards a sizable portion of the FUMBBL community having an issue with cpomb.
Would you at least agree with the statement that the upgrade to Piling On, and the effectiveness of the Claw/MB/Piling On skill combination, appears to be the most controversial rule change in recent BB rulesets? That seems fairly evident by the sheer number of times it comes up in conversation and that so many forum discussions on here about BB rules (including this one) break down into a debate about cpomb. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 12:04 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | If you're getting 30% at low TV and 70% at high TV then it's not broken at all: it's working as intended because the metric for balance for a roster is lifetime win percentage. |
Are you making up stuff on the fly to justify your views? This doesn't make any sense and it doesn't even apply to HM's point.
The dude was a mediocre coach (38% overall winrate) who started powergaming (zons + cpomb) and became a 70% winrate legend. Infer that powergaming makes coaches win more than they should, aka they pushed the "win button".
What has this to do with any roster lifetime? What the hell does that even mean for 100+ game teams? |
_________________
 |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 12:15 |
|
Seriously, you guys want to do this here? Ok...
JellyBelly - I have no idea how the whole FUMBBL community feels, and neither do you. I would agree that there are some who dislike it, though, and not only on FUMBBL.
I would also agree that people don't like losing players, which is why ageing and DP were disliked before, and why CPOMB is disliked now, and why something else would be disliked if CPOMB wasn't a primary source of casualties. I've covered all that earlier this thread, though. The fact is that the CPOMB was "designed with full knowledge of what it was supposed to do and what % were desired for player removal options since so many off the pitch player attrition factors were removed from the game at the same time." (source)
zakatan - the "lifetime" comment comes straight from Galak, so no I am not making stuff up. That "one dude" is one datapoint. If you want to make inferences from one datapoint then you go ahead, but I prefer a little more information than that. I can point you to all sorts of anomalies from which you can pull other inferences, if you like.
| Quote: | | What has this to do with any roster lifetime? What the hell does that even mean for 100+ game teams? |
The question is a balance one, and balance is measured as win percentage over lifetime for the roster (not for individual teams, ofc). That's why it is relevant. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 12:17 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | If you're getting 30% at low TV and 70% at high TV then it's not broken at all: it's working as intended because the metric for balance for a roster is lifetime win percentage. |
Who says the 'metric' for a balanced roster is an even lifetime win %, or if that is even achievable? Is that a 'fact' that's backed up by hard data? What about an established team that's played 85% of their games over 1800TV, where they have a statistical 70% win rate? What about the guy who is minmaxing his Zons so they stay in their 1300TV sweetspot?
| dode74 wrote: | | ..but then we're back to preference rather than "objectively broken". |
Who decides what is 'objectively broken'? King Dode? |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 12:22 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Seriously, you guys want to do this here? Ok... |
You don't have any self restraint whatsoever, eh? |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 13:06 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Quote: | | How would it? If I only played CPOMB rosters and averaged 55% it wouldn't show up at all. Especially as it'd take a while to get a winning %. |
You seem to be saying that it should be a 55% at each point in the lifetime rather than a lifetime 55%. If you're getting 30% at low TV and 70% at high TV then it's not broken at all: it's working as intended because the metric for balance for a roster is lifetime win percentage. |
Well this is a different issue completely, and in fact a bigger issue. The guy was averaging around 35% for a couple of years, until he was..........'educated' in to playing the system. That being low TV Zons in Ranked/High TV CDorfs with CPOMB in box.
The guy's skills weren't good. However he went from a 35% win average to a hmmmm 55%. That would have risen further due to the fact the CDORF team would have mainly stayed at high CR and the Zon team would have certainly stayed at low CR.
His chosen (or advised) method of winning in box was high CR CDORFS with as much CPOMB as possible. Now possibly with good coaches playing this method or any other method it doesn't make much difference (win % wise). However for lower ability it does.
Even so.........win percentages are by the by. The factors are: 1. How much damage is caused by this 1 combo, compared to other forms of damage. 2. How it affects coaches to avoid playing at high TV. 3. How 'coin toss' (invented an adjective there) it makes games.
None of these (plus giving bad coaching a leg up) are beneficial to the game. All of these are hard to spot with 'data'.
I really dislike getting involved in CPOMB debates as they're futile. However surely nobody can defend it at high TV, surely? |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 14:10 |
|
The problem with lifetime win% is that, if a coach sweetspots by artificially controlling TV (either playing a strong low TV team or playing at high TV with a strong high TV team) the win % will be higher than the intended lifetime win%.
I think that Galak and the BBRC didn't consider this possibility. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 14:50 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | The problem with lifetime win% is that, if a coach sweetspots by artificially controlling TV (either playing a strong low TV team or playing at high TV with a strong high TV team) the win % will be higher than the intended lifetime win%.
I think that Galak and the BBRC didn't consider this possibility. |
Come on now, nobody could manage to balance all races over the full TV range (Short of making all starting stats and skills equal for all races). The second best thing to give races purpose is to have them sweetspot at different points. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
