49 coaches online • Server time: 13:11
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post [IT'S ALIVE!] CLAWPO...goto Post Blackbox Trophy Seas...goto Post DIBBL Season 18 (NZ ...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
MrCushtie



Joined: Aug 10, 2018

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 02:38 Reply with quote Back to top

I'm keen on this. Have really seen my volume of games played drop since I finished the BBT, so it will be nice to have the incentive to play more again. Having less games also makes it less intimidating, given that it's harder to get Box games on American timezones...

_________________
Image
ramchop



Joined: Oct 12, 2013

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 03:24
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

How about a half marathon/marathon system?

6 teams. 25 games each.

Two tables. Half and Full marathon.

Half marathon for the best 3 teams in a squad (75 games). Of course some people might tailor their squad build to get an optimum 3 team set (discarding cheap 3 teams who never play). But that's ok. The prestige of the top of the full marathon table will be greater.
Strider84



Joined: Jun 03, 2009

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 06:53 Reply with quote Back to top

I fully support PCs input here as well.

100 games split on 4 teams is great. Rsce tiering seems good. Not sure why flings get off better thsn ogres but thats mayybe fine tuning.

For the additional points for completed games just make it 0.5 per 5 games, 2.5 per team, 10 points total.
neilwat



Joined: Aug 01, 2009

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 07:54 Reply with quote Back to top

100 games I think is a good thing, also like the idea of more different values in points as suggested by PC.
Cyrus-Havoc



Joined: Sep 15, 2006

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 10:34 Reply with quote Back to top

The points system should be based on the popularity of a race first & then on its effectiveness.

Anything that encourages people to play, like points for completing 5 or 10 games is important.

How about a completely different scoring system for results? For example score 1 point for a loss 2 for a draw 4 for a win that way those who play all or most of their games are rewarded for sticking with it even if they don't do well.

_________________
Not Undead but perhaps the oldest living coach!
Chivite



Joined: Sep 04, 2017

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 10:39 Reply with quote Back to top

I like PCs tier system too, I would like to see Norse up with the 6 pointers and necro either stay or even go down with the 5 pointers maybe? it bugs me that norse get an easier pick than necro, specially since according to Christer's graphs they get more games and have a better win%.

Other than that, I really like it.

4 teams, 100 games, option to get new&completely different squads once you finish the run.... all great choices in the right direction I think
Chivite



Joined: Sep 04, 2017

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 10:41 Reply with quote Back to top

Cyrus-Havoc wrote:
The points system should be based on the popularity of a race first & then on its effectiveness.

Anything that encourages people to play, like points for completing 5 or 10 games is important.

How about a completely different scoring system for results? For example score 1 point for a loss 2 for a draw 4 for a win that way those who play all or most of their games are rewarded for sticking with it even if they don't do well.


to encourage it would have to make little difference to lose, like a 1 - 1.5 - 2, there you would play even to lose, but this would be a great boost to low tier teams, then again, not a bad thing either
PurpleChest



Joined: Oct 25, 2003

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 11:26 Reply with quote Back to top

I was tired and in a rush when i came up with my tiering, someone more competent should look at it.

But i like its simplicity, with unused points being trophy points, no conversion. That weighs unused points at 2 points in the old system assuming 20 game runs (ive doubled costs basically to allow a little more finesse) which is STILL a buff over 2.5 in 30 games for lower tiered teams.

_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intelligor ulli
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone
bghandras



Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 14:13 Reply with quote Back to top

PurpleChest wrote:
But i like its simplicity, with unused points being trophy points, no conversion.
I appreciate this idea of simplicity. I had some convos where the word points meant 2-3 different things. XD

_________________
Image
'Best thing on FUMBBL'(Seventyone),
'AWESOME'(Kummo), 'Last league i would leave'(SpecialOne), 'Far far the BEST thing i played online'(Grunth)
Christer



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 16:05
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

First off, let me start with explaining that the numbers I posted were literally something I came up with while writing the post. The feedback about unused points is fair and adjusting it lower makes sense.

PC's list of race tiers is something I want to go into in more detail, so I've taken the time to adjust it back to the 0-3 scale to make it easier for me to see the changes. Let's go through these changes group by group, starting at the low end:

0.5 points
Halflings (+0.5)

From my charts, flings are at a pretty low score per game and below the median in terms of matches played (which is a proxy for popularity). Increasing the cost of flings would make them less popular as a choice but at the same time increase the popularity of goblins and ogres.I think the spread isn't large enough to warrant the increase in cost (although I appreciate that PC wanted *something* in the 0.5 point bracket).

Other possible candidate races for this bracket would be the previous 1 point ones (Slann, Underworld and Vampires. From a popularity perspective, Dropping vampires to this bracket would make more sense to me. They're the least popular of the three and has the weakest score per game. Making them more compelling might increase both popularity and score per game (encourages stronger coaches to pick them).

1 point
No new races here.

Slann has been moved up in cost and will be covered in the next section. As mentioned above, though, one potential change I would consider would be to move vampires down to 0.5 points instead.

1.5 points
Khemri (-0.5)
Slann (+0.5)

Khemri are middle of the pack in terms of score per game, and relatively popular as it stands. I'm not so sure I would want to make them cheaper because of this. In addition, one of the key things about the trophy is diversity, and the Blackbox division doesn't need more incentive to use bashy teams.

Slann are quite popular overall, and is just above the median in terms of score per game. I have no issues moving them to this cost tier.

2 points
No new races here.

Khemri was suggested to be moved down, and Norse and High Elves moved up in cost.

2.5 points
Norse (+0.5)
High Elves (+0.5)
Chaos Renegades (-0.5)
Chaos Chosen (-0.5)
Nurgle (-0.5)

Norse have a high score per game and are immensly popular. Increasing cost slightly seems fine.

High elves are in a similar place, so no big issues with this shift either.

All the chaos teams being cheaper would make sense in terms of them being below the median in score and fairly unpopular overall. Again, though, I'm not sure I want to make these teams more popular in order to incentivize people to pick non-bashy teams.

3 points
No new teams in this bracket.

Chaos teams were moved down.

Other candidates I could see being moved down to 2.5 points would be Amazons and Lizardmen. Both races are surprisingly unpopular despite doing well in terms of score. That being said, perhaps it's not advisable to discount these highly successful teams as they could become almost "must-picks" if they were cheaper.

Dark Elves would be the next choice to discount slightly. Below average score per game and fairly unpopular. Let's call this a change I'd make.

My adjustments to PCs (great) suggestion would be:

3 points
Amazon, Chaos Chosen, Chaos Dwarf, Chaos Renegades, Dwarf, Lizardmen, Necromantic, Nurgle, Orc, Skaven, Undead, Wood Elf

2.5 points
Dark Elf, High Elf, Norse

2 points
Elven Union, Human, Khemri

1.5 points
Slann

1 point
Underworld

0.5 points
Vampire

0 points
Goblin, Halfling, Ogre

In terms of points per unused score, the score per game drops roughly 0.1 per cost bracket (~0.6 for 3 point teams, ~0.5 for 2 point teams, ~0.4 for 1 point teams and ~0.3 for 0 point teams). With 25 games per team, the equalizer would be 2.5 points per unused allocation. With that, here's my revised settings:

- 4 teams per squad
- 25 games per team
- 7 points per squad
- 2.5 points per unused allocation
- Max 2 cost 3 teams (redundant because more wouldn't be possible)
- 0.5 points bonus per 5 games
- 1.5 points bonus for a race lead

I know some people don't think the bonus points per games is necessary, but I feel it makes sense to give some incentive to complete your games even if you have a few bad losses.

I also like the idea of allowing more squads to be started once you complete your previous one. No repeat of races within the season though. Could cap this at two squads, or just leave it open until it's not possible anymore. I can't immediately figure out how many would be possible in theory (the full set of 6x4 races isn't possible), so I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader Smile
smallman



Joined: Sep 24, 2007

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 16:46 Reply with quote Back to top

Looks great except only having 5 teams that aren't on a full number really limits your squad choices. Renegades should only be 2.5, they take 25 games to develop in to something decent, same for Lizards in my opinion. High elf should only be 2, noone would take them at 2.5.
Chivite



Joined: Sep 04, 2017

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 16:48 Reply with quote Back to top

Im scraching my head here over that tier list and one thing jumps to mind straight away, if someone goes the "Vicius" way that person would have 6.5 unused points, what do you do with the .5 of 2.5? or on anybody who rounds up with their teams worth total ending in .5 for that matter...

There is also something itchy in the back of my brain when I look at that tier system, cant put my finger on it yet, so Ill keep thinking about it.

I really enjoyed BBT2 and would love for BBT3 to be the bestest ever


EDIT

Lizards are amazing from game 0 Smallman, if you make em 2.5 they will be an almost warranteed pick on everybody's roster. I do agree on pact and high elf though
PurpleChest



Joined: Oct 25, 2003

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 17:29 Reply with quote Back to top

Christer wrote:
(although I appreciate that PC wanted *something* in the 0.5 point bracket).


Yeah, you totally called it, that's 100% why i put flings where I did.

_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intelligor ulli
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone
Christer



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 17:58
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

I don't mind leaving tiers mostly as in S2 either honestly. Sticking with 3 tiers plus stunties is compelling for the simplicity. Just keeping it as in S2 but dropping dark elves to 2 (same rationale as above) would be fine for me. Gets rid of the complexity of 0.5 unallocated points too.

Mind you, keeping it 0-3 points is something I'd rather do as it simplifies things from a technical perspective. Some code is already in place to deal with 3 point cost teams.
Nelphine



Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2019 - 18:09 Reply with quote Back to top

I agree with having points somewhere that incentives using losing teams. However, any particular reason to give out points for games played, rather than points for losses? (For instance, sprints and various leagues give out 4 for a win, 2 for a draw, 1 for a loss).
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic