58 coaches online • Server time: 09:22
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post [SL]UMBBL Cup VIgoto Post Tournois Annexes JBLgoto Post NBFL Season 24: Wint...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 13:32 Reply with quote Back to top

cdassak wrote:
The point is not what I will do but how this is healthier and better for the tournament scene 🙂


Absolutely, when I said healthier, I meant in a holistic sense for the site. Individually I'm pretty sure some people who may have had a lot of time previously to build teams may find themselves somewhat short of requirements to fill the type of tournament schedule they were previously accustomed to.

But I also think the tournament scene will change (potentially quite drastically) to accommodate seasons.

As to how it is healthier for the site (this is generalised, not targeted):

Parked teams are actually not participating 90% of the time. They're removed from matchmaking, a null entity. When they do participate to prep for tournaments they're often the ones involved in mismatched games, the kind of which people find off-putting in box, and exploitative in ranked.

Their very presence is enough to put many people off even entering tournaments, or create pressure on others to emulate them before entering. This is even more crushing if said parked team has tournament prizes on its roster - prizes that tend only to be risked in small slots of calendar time.

XFL specifically has an issue with teams that are solely created for XFL, targeted skills etc.

And of course, the obvious - a parked team is potentially more likely to repeat if it has major prizes on it already. Especially since major prizes tend to deviate in strength between various tournament directors over the years and some have prizes that will simply never be replicated again.

Every time one of these threads has appeared a few people pop up to state that huge, mostly inactive, teams put them off entering the wider sphere of FUMBBL tournament play. Every time there is a tournament plenty of people on irc/discord state they would love to enter but "do not have an 1.8m/2m+ team". And every tournament even seasoned campaigners of high skill gripe about "unfair teams".

_________________
Image
Christer



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 13:34
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

cdassak wrote:
Is this 'halthier' than having to build the team once and play it every tournament?


I think so, yes.

What it comes down to is accessibility of tournaments to two major groups: Newcomers to the site, and existing coaches who don't feel they have the time or ability to build these huge major tournament teams.

What you are asking for (being able to re-use the same team in consecutive tournaments without rebuilding in between) is essentially "no re-drafting". This means that these teams of yours will be growing unbounded to the point where attrition limits the growth. This happens at a higher TV than in BB2016, which was higher than before. This is on top of being able to build more TV efficient teams compared to before as well.

For coaches like yourself, who have the time to build up their tournament teams "in advance" you can still do that to the extent that a period of time with a lot of games played can build multiple teams to tournament readiness, but you won't be able to "live" on that for the rest of your BB career. Once a team enters a tournament, it will need rebuilding again.

An alternative way to accomodate being able to re-use teams would be to not have tournament games count for the season. Essentially, this allows perpetual games for these teams, making them huge (although I grant you that tournaments are probably rougher games in general, even more-so than strict Blackbox teams). You'd still, however, build your team to much higher TV (Probably 2500+) than your typical season-enabled team. Which, of course, results in the same issue where major tournaments are inaccessible to people.

Note that being inaccessible isn't so much about being able to participate (which any team can do), but to actually have a perceived chance at winning and properly competing. This is a big hurdle at the moment, and seasons as proposed will reduce the amount of time necessary to have a competitive team to enter.

Is this a change for long-lived teams, or people such as yourself who have spent the time to build X number of tournament teams you play with only in tournaments? Yes, of course. However, I believe that the long-term health of major tournaments is better with seasons as per the new rules.

Clearly, this is subjective and my opinion which I base on what people talk to me about and the conclusions and estimates I make out of reading the new rules.

I would also like to again point out that this "current thinking" topic actually means something. I'm prepared to change the approach if people in general think there is genuinely a better way and have strong enough arguments to convince me.
ClayInfinity



Joined: Aug 15, 2003

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 13:54 Reply with quote Back to top

Christer wrote:
cdassak wrote:
Is this 'halthier' than having to build the team once and play it every tournament?


I think so, yes.

What it comes down to is accessibility of tournaments to two major groups: Newcomers to the site, and existing coaches who don't feel they have the time or ability to build these huge major tournament teams.

What you are asking for (being able to re-use the same team in consecutive tournaments without rebuilding in between) is essentially "no re-drafting". This means that these teams of yours will be growing unbounded to the point where attrition limits the growth. This happens at a higher TV than in BB2016, which was higher than before. This is on top of being able to build more TV efficient teams compared to before as well.

For coaches like yourself, who have the time to build up their tournament teams "in advance" you can still do that to the extent that a period of time with a lot of games played can build multiple teams to tournament readiness, but you won't be able to "live" on that for the rest of your BB career. Once a team enters a tournament, it will need rebuilding again.

An alternative way to accomodate being able to re-use teams would be to not have tournament games count for the season. Essentially, this allows perpetual games for these teams, making them huge (although I grant you that tournaments are probably rougher games in general, even more-so than strict Blackbox teams). You'd still, however, build your team to much higher TV (Probably 2500+) than your typical season-enabled team. Which, of course, results in the same issue where major tournaments are inaccessible to people.

Note that being inaccessible isn't so much about being able to participate (which any team can do), but to actually have a perceived chance at winning and properly competing. This is a big hurdle at the moment, and seasons as proposed will reduce the amount of time necessary to have a competitive team to enter.

Is this a change for long-lived teams, or people such as yourself who have spent the time to build X number of tournament teams you play with only in tournaments? Yes, of course. However, I believe that the long-term health of major tournaments is better with seasons as per the new rules.

Clearly, this is subjective and my opinion which I base on what people talk to me about and the conclusions and estimates I make out of reading the new rules.

I would also like to again point out that this "current thinking" topic actually means something. I'm prepared to change the approach if people in general think there is genuinely a better way and have strong enough arguments to convince me.


+1 to all of the above
pielover101



Joined: May 17, 2018

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 14:27 Reply with quote Back to top

IMO a Nurgle player trying to retain 4 block players should not be paying the same retention fees as a legend Elf going into their fifth season. Make the cost of long term players exponential rather than quadratic (something like starting the fee at 10k then double it each subsequent season.). It lets the slow developing teams actually keep some basic skills, and stops legends getting 100+ games (320k fee after a 6th season/90 games is probably unaffordable).

Retaining the current semi-random WTR rules works too as you get at least 1 rebuild with no fees.

Edit: Sorry it's a little off topic Razz
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 15:03 Reply with quote Back to top

Balle2000 wrote:
koadah wrote:
Simple. Take the blue pill and move to the League division. Twisted Evil

What is this thing you got with coaches moving to the League division about anyway? Is your league recruiting right now, or?

And why frame it like a blue pill? I've been playing both in League and Box for many years. It's not like you have to pick just one.


As you know I don't really play Ranked or Box. The reason for this is time. I rarely even play league at the moment.


As it stands, if I suddenly did get a load more time, I would play R or B if I couldn't get a League game.

I probably won't have much interest in playing the "Competitve" division even if I cannot get a League game.

I'm not cutting my teams down to 1350. I wouldn't be keen on cutting to 1750. Wink
So why would I be there?

League I hear will not have seasons. So, people can bloat as much as they like.

If Leagues gets a scheduler it should probably have a TV cap. Commishes should be able to set their own caps.

Most of my tournaments will have a TV cap. Some may well get caps that don't have them now.

I rarely played official Majors. But they did generate a bit of a buzz. I did spec games from time to time. For me, they won't seem quite so "major" any more. Though they may have more entrants. At least to start with.

As far as I'm concerned, the currently proposed approach to seasons cuts a huge chunk of thhe fluff and fun out of the division.

It just looks like a boring "competitive" division.
Honestly, if I wanted to be "competitive" I would play other games than blood bowl.

So, the way I see it... the competitive division is not for me and some others will think it is not for them either. It may not dawn on them until the 2nd, 3rd or 4th cutdown.

We'll see. Some will like it, some won't.

If my leagues/tournaments gain some extra members, that is fine.
If we can bring back some of the fine old league tournaments from days gone by, that is great too.

But I don't think that you will be able to recreate the old Ranked spirit in Competitve or League. I think that quite an important bit of Fumbbl will die and quite a few old coaches will drift away.

But hey, people quit at every rule change. So that is they way it goes.

_________________
Image
[SL]UMBBL Cup - 17th September - NO TV limit!
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 15:08 Reply with quote Back to top

Christer wrote:
...


So, why didn't we have 2000 or 2200 capped Majors in the past?

For me, I don't think that the new Majors will be quite major enough.

Coaches without much time to play to rebuild a team are locked out.

_________________
Image
[SL]UMBBL Cup - 17th September - NO TV limit!
cdassak



Joined: Oct 23, 2013

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 15:21 Reply with quote Back to top

First of all, thanks to both AD and bigC for taking the time to respond.

Just to clear things, I am not asking for 'no redrafting'. I have accepted that we are moving into a new era of the game, exciting in a way, puzzling in another but certainly inevitable.

I wouldn't like to be in the position of Christer (and NAF), having to deal with/adopt to all the changes the new rules will bring to their 'child' and I have decided to just wait for the outcome and game on (or not).

What ticked me of to comment on this thread is the moral overtone of the term 'healthy' (and subsequently 'unhealthy') that was used to describe the current tournament scene (of which a big part are the parked mega, or not so mega, teams).

Based on pure math, I do believe that having to constantly build for tournaments is worse that building just once. In the end it will create another imbalance based on the number of games each coach can play every year. One can argue that the same thing applies now (I do believe that if your goal is to play in tournaments it's not that difficult to build teams for them but it's another discussion and kinda pointless now) but it will be more severe with the new rules.

_________________
Image
awambawamb



Joined: Feb 17, 2008

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 15:38 Reply with quote Back to top

Christer wrote:
Is this a change for long-lived teams, or people such as yourself who have spent the time to build X number of tournament teams you play with only in tournaments? Yes, of course. However, I believe that the long-term health of major tournaments is better with seasons as per the new rules.


I'll be blunt, but this thing about rebuilding the team after a tournament or n games feels like a kick in the face to old players who come to FUMBBL to build their own "legendary teams".

Sticking to the rules is super-ok, when the game changes you need to learn the new rules if you want to keep playing with other people; it's crystal clear.

Looking backwards, tho, the work of many coaches on their teams in terms of time spent on their pixels is undeniable and is a peculiarity of this community. If it was me, I'd allow a testing phase for an uncapped, de-seasoned "home ruled" division to see how it goes. Has been done for the Stunty Leeg and Secret League, why not give it a try?

_________________
"la virtú sta nel cielo e nella terra, ma anche nelle nuvole e nelle stelle"

Image
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 15:43 Reply with quote Back to top

Site is too small to split the userbase with a house-ruled division (not saying that a house-ruled division would be bad on principle, just from a pragmatical point of view).
FUMBBL should have hundreds of coaches online to support many divisions.
Since Christer bothers to do the hard and boring task to update the rules, we can bother to play with the new rules and be thankful (not super excited either about redraft at such low TV, but it's the official ruleset and Christer has to stick to it, as he said in the past).
Christer



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 15:47
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

cdassak wrote:
Based on pure math, I do believe that having to constantly build for tournaments is worse that building just once. In the end it will create another imbalance based on the number of games each coach can play every year. One can argue that the same thing applies now (I do believe that if your goal is to play in tournaments it's not that difficult to build teams for them but it's another discussion and kinda pointless now) but it will be more severe with the new rules.


I don't know about the math part. However, the two options for allowing you to continue using that one team would be to either accept huge TV teams in majors (thus not solving that core issue), or adjusting attrition or team development in a significant way.

One of the core foundations of FUMBBL is that I aim to have the site run as close to the rules as possible, avoiding house rules to as great of an extent as I can. Yes, there are some differences and I realize I am proposing a modification of the re-drafting budget. I am not making that call lightly, and truly believe it's the best way to keep the game as intended by the game designers without making a super complicated set of house rules. It's the most minimal adjustment I have come up with so far.

I don't expect it will please everyone, and I do empathise with coaches who love the high TV play style. I still believe it's better for the community as a whole to migrate to the rules as they are given.

You're expressing that you want to be able to perpetually play the same team in tournaments, but are not addressing the core issue of endless growth and how you'd keep the team TVs in the intended range.
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 15:54 Reply with quote Back to top

cdassak wrote:
First of all, thanks to both AD and bigC for taking the time to respond.

Just to clear things, I am not asking for 'no redrafting'. I have accepted that we are moving into a new era of the game, exciting in a way, puzzling in another but certainly inevitable.

I wouldn't like to be in the position of Christer (and NAF), having to deal with/adopt to all the changes the new rules will bring to their 'child' and I have decided to just wait for the outcome and game on (or not).

What ticked me of to comment on this thread is the moral overtone of the term 'healthy' (and subsequently 'unhealthy') that was used to describe the current tournament scene (of which a big part are the parked mega, or not so mega, teams).

Based on pure math, I do believe that having to constantly build for tournaments is worse that building just once. In the end it will create another imbalance based on the number of games each coach can play every year. One can argue that the same thing applies now (I do believe that if your goal is to play in tournaments it's not that difficult to build teams for them but it's another discussion and kinda pointless now) but it will be more severe with the new rules.



No moral judgement was intended - take a look at my homepage, I have plenty of teams that fit the definitions of my descriptors Wink

_________________
Image
Balle2000



Joined: Sep 25, 2008

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 16:41 Reply with quote Back to top

@koadah I notice you quoted me above, but I'm having some difficulty understanding if you're answering any of my questions. Misquote?

_________________
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010
Image
Get your team a bio


Last edited by Balle2000 on Aug 13, 2020 - 17:23; edited 1 time in total
Strider84



Joined: Jun 03, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 17:02 Reply with quote Back to top

We'll just have the official fumbb[L] cup once a year where everyone can move their favorite teams to and there is no redrafting.
that will be the one time all coaches bring their 2500 teams to show off their forgotten high TV skills. all will be good Smile

but in my opinion, as someone who was always wondering how everyone got these unfair teams, I kinda like the idea to be more competitive and more based on play then on team building, but I can also understand that many people enjoy spending days of time to prep their teams for a major.
most of the people will keep playing anyways as the game is highly addictive Smile
JanMattys



Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 17:57 Reply with quote Back to top

I like the changes proposed by Christer, and I also like the merging of B and R.

After all, a non-hardcore team who plays using gamefinder then switches to random in the last games will surely meet teams approaching its tv. We are not in a closed league, where the success of coach A in the long run means the defeat of coach B.

The matchup between team A and team B will be a one-off thing, and how both teams got there has no importance at all. If you got to tv 2000 in hardcore and your opponent got to tv 2000 in non-hardcore, who cares? You are still tv 2000 vs tv 2000.

The second team will probably a little more "custom built", but that's about it.

I like all the proposed changes BigC. Let's see how this develops.

_________________
Image
Uber



Joined: Mar 22, 2004

Post   Posted: Aug 13, 2020 - 18:08 Reply with quote Back to top

I would like to have the option to play in an open division at a higher cap than 1350, someone mentionned 1750 and that made sense to me.

I would like it if the agent fees would not kick in until a player gets to +60 TV in upgrades.

That would encourage a more horizontal approach of developping teams that are not mostly rookies, but also not completely broken.

_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict.
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