FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 17:48

zakatan wrote:

mrt1212 wrote:

Roland wrote:

The age of 11 man teams is over, what's wrong with that?

Maybe - as I said in the journeyman thread there are perilous few incentives to replace journeymen linos once they pop up on your team since you'll always have better uses of cash either for stockpiling expected replacements or inducements themselves.

on a team like this:

https://www.fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=705850

my policy is to never replace journeyman unless I can have a bench, because journeyman are so much better at their job than rostered linos and they don't take a wage.

I'm wondering how this kind of policy can be affected by EM.

Did someone say that elves can never save money? Wink

You'll have a hard time saving up to buy 6 linos at once.

EM just looks like the journeyman rule to me. Hold enough cash to buy two good positionals and a lino or two.

Buy linos until you get to a 10 man team. Then don't buy another until you can afford 2 at once to go to 12 men.
That was the old Box strategy I think.

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 18:05

For 120k positional teams, the Dakka constant of EM is 70k lower than the J-men unwritten rule.

A full lino, and some probability P harder to reach the Dakka constant, as AD keeps saying.

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 18:11

thoralf wrote:

If more unbalanced matches means less pseudo-chess, I can live with it. More so if tit-for-tat skews unbalanced matches toward smallish retributions. Otherwise, we found our new CPOMb thread.

What spams of CPOMb havenâ€™t killed is now stronger.

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to communicate.

There exists (existed) in CRP a rough balance which was predicated on the TVs of the teams when they were paired. The inducement phase was set up to ONLY allow the underdog to gain an advantage (in pure TV terms) because whatever the overdog spent the underdog also got added to their inducement value.

Now you have a system which simply does not care who spends what, and overdog or underdog no longer carries any meaning as far as inducements are concerned.

This, by its definition, leads to more unbalanced matches where the inducement modified TV differences are no longer kept close to parity.

Even if you don't think inducements were an accurate way to bridge TV gaps, you still have a system which simply allows for even greater TV gaps to be generated.

Which is fine if you like it that way, but it's a significant difference for a lot of people who want to play the game in less arbitrarily unbalanced manner.

PainState

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 18:12

It will be interesting to see the "fall out" on the meta with EM in the game.

My ranked teams all had some nice piles of gold. So the majority of my teams are now running with 16 men now and I still have gold left over in the 250K+ range. Heck My wood elf team is now 16 men, running all the positionals to max level, bought more rerolls and they still have a large stash of cash.

So, what does this mean? It means my ranked teams have no choice but to buy some inducments for matches because IF I sit on the cash I have a very good choice of losing large sums of gold and get nothing out of it. I have nothing else to spend gold on besides inducments.

Once teams hit that 200-290K Range on the EM chart, those are the ones who will be spending at least 100K every match. Because in the end when it comes to gold the froumla is now: Winnings - Cost of Inducments. Now with the removal of SE teams can almost always buy one 50K incumbent in every match and have very little chance of actually losing large sums of money.

The teams that will attempt to stash their Gold are the ones who are conservative and want enough gold to purchase a big $ player. Thus not as likely to spend their gold willy nilly on inducements.

Here is the point of all this rambling. Teams with 16 players will have the luxury of being able to spend Gold on inducments for every game.

How will that effect the meta? Will teams in Ranked avoid teams with over 150K in treasury? Will coaches slowly adapt to this new dynamic and realize every match there is a chance your foe will buy some goodies....I already know Iam, so I would actually be shocked if they did not spend at least 50K.

_________________
Comish of the:

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 18:23

licker wrote:

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to communicate.

I honestly could not care less, just as I couldn't care less how mansplaining the same thing over and over again is supposed to impress anyone.

But I thought libertarians fought for market freedom. At least THAT is interesting. Honestly.

Please, do continue.

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.

Mr_Foulscumm

Joined: Mar 05, 2005

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 18:24

licker wrote:

thoralf wrote:

If more unbalanced matches means less pseudo-chess, I can live with it. More so if tit-for-tat skews unbalanced matches toward smallish retributions. Otherwise, we found our new CPOMb thread.

What spams of CPOMb havenâ€™t killed is now stronger.

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to communicate.

There exists (existed) in CRP a rough balance which was predicated on the TVs of the teams when they were paired. The inducement phase was set up to ONLY allow the underdog to gain an advantage (in pure TV terms) because whatever the overdog spent the underdog also got added to their inducement value.

Now you have a system which simply does not care who spends what, and overdog or underdog no longer carries any meaning as far as inducements are concerned.

This, by its definition, leads to more unbalanced matches where the inducement modified TV differences are no longer kept close to parity.

Even if you don't think inducements were an accurate way to bridge TV gaps, you still have a system which simply allows for even greater TV gaps to be generated.

Which is fine if you like it that way, but it's a significant difference for a lot of people who want to play the game in less arbitrarily unbalanced manner.

Even though I said it more elegantly, I totally agree with lickers low-brow assessment.

_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 18:31

CRP inducements' calculation was better in my opinion, I would have kept it in BB2016.
The Wiz should be reintroduced, priced 200-250k I guess.

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 18:35

PainState wrote:

It will be interesting to see the "fall out" on the meta with EM in the game.

My ranked teams all had some nice piles of gold. So the majority of my teams are now running with 16 men now and I still have gold left over in the 250K+ range. Heck My wood elf team is now 16 men, running all the positionals to max level, bought more rerolls and they still have a large stash of cash.

So, what does this mean? It means my ranked teams have no choice but to buy some inducments for matches because IF I sit on the cash I have a very good choice of losing large sums of gold and get nothing out of it. I have nothing else to spend gold on besides inducments.

Once teams hit that 200-290K Range on the EM chart, those are the ones who will be spending at least 100K every match. Because in the end when it comes to gold the froumla is now: Winnings - Cost of Inducments. Now with the removal of SE teams can almost always buy one 50K incumbent in every match and have very little chance of actually losing large sums of money.

The teams that will attempt to stash their Gold are the ones who are conservative and want enough gold to purchase a big $ player. Thus not as likely to spend their gold willy nilly on inducements.

Here is the point of all this rambling. Teams with 16 players will have the luxury of being able to spend Gold on inducments for every game.

How will that effect the meta? Will teams in Ranked avoid teams with over 150K in treasury? Will coaches slowly adapt to this new dynamic and realize every match there is a chance your foe will buy some goodies....I already know Iam, so I would actually be shocked if they did not spend at least 50K.

I do wonder how treasury will affect perceived team strength in Gamefinder and what the outcomes are.

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 18:36

thoralf wrote:

For 120k positional teams, the Dakka constant of EM is 70k lower than the J-men unwritten rule.

A full lino, and some probability P harder to reach the Dakka constant, as AD keeps saying.

If we're talking about the 290k then that is around where I'd expect the JM rule to be. Can't be sure. It's an unwritten rule. Wink

Sure, you wouldn't have enough in reserve for two WDs if you're planning to jump from 10 to 12 though.

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 18:42

thoralf wrote:

licker wrote:

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to communicate.

I honestly could not care less, just as I couldn't care less how mansplaining the same thing over and over again is supposed to impress anyone.

But I thought libertarians fought for market freedom. At least THAT is interesting. Honestly.

Please, do continue.

I suppose I can just go back to ignoring you.

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 18:42

licker wrote:

...

There exists (existed) in CRP a rough balance which was predicated on the TVs of the teams when they were paired. The inducement phase was set up to ONLY allow the underdog to gain an advantage (in pure TV terms) because whatever the overdog spent the underdog also got added to their inducement value.

Now you have a system which simply does not care who spends what, and overdog or underdog no longer carries any meaning as far as inducements are concerned.

This, by its definition, leads to more unbalanced matches where the inducement modified TV differences are no longer kept close to parity...

I suppose the assumption is that people won't be chucking huge amounts of cash in for regular matches.

You'll need it for rebuilding and re-buying at the end of the season.

A cup final is a bit different though.

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 18:49

koadah wrote:

licker wrote:

...

There exists (existed) in CRP a rough balance which was predicated on the TVs of the teams when they were paired. The inducement phase was set up to ONLY allow the underdog to gain an advantage (in pure TV terms) because whatever the overdog spent the underdog also got added to their inducement value.

Now you have a system which simply does not care who spends what, and overdog or underdog no longer carries any meaning as far as inducements are concerned.

This, by its definition, leads to more unbalanced matches where the inducement modified TV differences are no longer kept close to parity...

I suppose the assumption is that people won't be chucking huge amounts of cash in for regular matches.

You'll need it for rebuilding and re-buying at the end of the season.

A cup final is a bit different though.

So now you assume we have seasons too? I don't, but even if we do, you only have to save the cash towards the end of it, and depending on its length that may be a small fraction of the games played.

But really it's always going to be an issue for the 'topping off' aspect. And if wizards return at their 150k price tag, then that's where you'll see the bigest imbalances. You are at 1430, I'm at 1370, so I add 90k from my 200k to take a wizard.

Eh, like I've said, this is the BB2 system, and it really turns some otherwise interesting matchups in to wizard luck bowls. Again, if that's what you, or people, want, great, it's what we're going to have.

I'm just assuming that's where the majority of salt is going to derive from. Maybe not, I mean in BB2 people just suck it up and 'abuse' it when they can and take their lumps when the shoes on the other foot. I just think it makes for worse individual matches without actually benefiting any one long term.

Though there are some sneaky guys out there figuring out how to min/max low TV trash teams which can then benefit that much more from taking the extra inducement benefits. This won't be the same as lame single legend no reroll pact kill teams, but the effect on people enjoyment of the matches will be identical.

Garion

Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 18:52

Mr_Foulscumm wrote:

licker wrote:

thoralf wrote:

If more unbalanced matches means less pseudo-chess, I can live with it. More so if tit-for-tat skews unbalanced matches toward smallish retributions. Otherwise, we found our new CPOMb thread.

What spams of CPOMb havenâ€™t killed is now stronger.

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to communicate.

There exists (existed) in CRP a rough balance which was predicated on the TVs of the teams when they were paired. The inducement phase was set up to ONLY allow the underdog to gain an advantage (in pure TV terms) because whatever the overdog spent the underdog also got added to their inducement value.

Now you have a system which simply does not care who spends what, and overdog or underdog no longer carries any meaning as far as inducements are concerned.

This, by its definition, leads to more unbalanced matches where the inducement modified TV differences are no longer kept close to parity.

Even if you don't think inducements were an accurate way to bridge TV gaps, you still have a system which simply allows for even greater TV gaps to be generated.

Which is fine if you like it that way, but it's a significant difference for a lot of people who want to play the game in less arbitrarily unbalanced manner.

Even though I said it more elegantly, I totally agree with lickers low-brow assessment.

I'm suprised Fouly, personally I think this change will push people away from the silly min maxed team building method that plagued CRP, i expect to see more teams with a reasonable sized bench now, and a similar team building style to LRB4 again, with Guard en masse being the order of the day. This to me is a superior tatical form of the game that suffered greatly during the CRP era min max cpomb sillyness.

Sneak hirring will happen, which on occasions will be slightyl irksome, but for me on the whole the positives outweigh the negatives. The inducements on the whole are pretty 'meh'. None of them would scare me at all apart from the wizard, but i guess we have to wait and see what happens there.

One of my main concerns (though not a huge one) is attrition on the whole may have been tonned down too much, I'd have liked there to be no apo or regen on surfs to help spread the hurt. Though i guess seasons address this in an artificial way.

_________________

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 19:00

Garion wrote:

Mr_Foulscumm wrote:

licker wrote:

thoralf wrote:

If more unbalanced matches means less pseudo-chess, I can live with it. More so if tit-for-tat skews unbalanced matches toward smallish retributions. Otherwise, we found our new CPOMb thread.

What spams of CPOMb havenâ€™t killed is now stronger.

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to communicate.

There exists (existed) in CRP a rough balance which was predicated on the TVs of the teams when they were paired. The inducement phase was set up to ONLY allow the underdog to gain an advantage (in pure TV terms) because whatever the overdog spent the underdog also got added to their inducement value.

Now you have a system which simply does not care who spends what, and overdog or underdog no longer carries any meaning as far as inducements are concerned.

This, by its definition, leads to more unbalanced matches where the inducement modified TV differences are no longer kept close to parity.

Even if you don't think inducements were an accurate way to bridge TV gaps, you still have a system which simply allows for even greater TV gaps to be generated.

Which is fine if you like it that way, but it's a significant difference for a lot of people who want to play the game in less arbitrarily unbalanced manner.

Even though I said it more elegantly, I totally agree with lickers low-brow assessment.

I'm suprised Fouly, personally I think this change will push people away from the silly min maxed team building method that plagued CRP, i expect to see more teams with a reasonable sized bench now, and a similar team building style to LRB4 again, with Guard en masse being the order of the day. This to me is a superior tatical form of the game that suffered greatly during the CRP era min max cpomb sillyness.

I really only see bench building happening on teams that already have incentives and means to do it. If there are no journeymen on the team roster and you're bumping up against 290k and you have 40k or 50k linos, sure, go for it. But if you are saddled with 70k linos and are constantly behind the journeyman gun, what incentive is there to replace the journeyman and get another lino? 140k of expense for what?

It just doesn't pencil out from my vantage point to take excess players or try to when you fall into the journeyman predicament. Maybe there will be compelling examples in the future that slam my idea down but I just don't see any team currently without a bench due to CRP meta seizing upon it under the new meta.

Of course there will be coaches who want a bench with elves but I can't help but see the long term health of the team being compromised by replacing journeymen prematurely given the levers being pulled in the new meta.

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Mar 23, 2017 - 19:05

koadah wrote:

licker wrote:

...

There exists (existed) in CRP a rough balance which was predicated on the TVs of the teams when they were paired. The inducement phase was set up to ONLY allow the underdog to gain an advantage (in pure TV terms) because whatever the overdog spent the underdog also got added to their inducement value.

Now you have a system which simply does not care who spends what, and overdog or underdog no longer carries any meaning as far as inducements are concerned.

This, by its definition, leads to more unbalanced matches where the inducement modified TV differences are no longer kept close to parity...

I suppose the assumption is that people won't be chucking huge amounts of cash in for regular matches.

For people that only indulge in matchmaking made matches and play every game as if it was their last, what incentive is there to not use available cash? Restarting a team that gets blown up because the cash constraints make recovery ambiguous might be a bit more tempting than slogging through 4-5 games against opponents buying inducements AND being down an expensive positional.

If cash dumping becomes a pretty unenjoyable aspect of the game it might necessitate a rework of how Bowlbot and Ranked players evaluate Treasury as a component of evenness of a matchup - but it would be especially hard to get right given no indication of how a coach uses their Treasury prior to the match. You'd be introducing a variable check that may or may not come into play which might make things even worse.