90 coaches online • Server time: 21:20
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post NCBB Season 35goto Post Human League Premier...goto Post Southern Wastes Leag...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Traul



Joined: Jun 09, 2013

Post   Posted: Aug 14, 2020 - 20:09 Reply with quote Back to top

Christer wrote:
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.

I am going to repeat myself, but in that case can we please get rid of TV matching? That is the single most disruptive deviation from the rules and it completely warps team building. Smallkosp, 11 players, 0RR, TV100 amazons,... are all a byproduct of TV matching and it is only going to get worse with the new development system that makes it easier to reproduce the same builds over and over.
Malmir



Joined: May 20, 2008

Post   Posted: Aug 14, 2020 - 20:29 Reply with quote Back to top

awambawamb wrote:
but you can always go full dwarf!


This is what's going to happen. Now won't that be fun...
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Aug 14, 2020 - 20:32 Reply with quote Back to top

Can I see the market research that suggests a segment of coaches doesn't enter tourneys because they're behind in the arms race? Or would be more predisposed towards entering tourneys if there was a leveler in the arms race?

Bazakastine can provide numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if the tourney participation rate is reflective of overall site participation over time. And not something that can exactly be goosed by lowering barriers or bells and whistles because it is predicated on scheduling games which is the antithesis of the Ranked and Box venues, even if they facilitate team building for tourneys as externality.

If Fumbbl's BB2020 implementation draws people to the site and tourney participation is a positive externality of that, great!

I'm kind of curious about the timing to implement and then the forecast a year or so out when things have settled. Yes, I'm always thinking about gloomy what-ifs and especially when entering maintenance regimens for things but...

Is there going to be some assessment of the effects at some point after implementation, just in case things are...screwy?
ClayInfinity



Joined: Aug 15, 2003

Post   Posted: Aug 14, 2020 - 21:40 Reply with quote Back to top

mister__joshua wrote:
I think ‘anyone throwing a team into a major’ is a misnomer. I was suggesting that majors be tied to seasons, so by entering Fumbbl’s ‘Warpstone Open Season’ you are in effect entering a major, and if at the end of X no of games (I think 10 is a good number but others would prefer higher) you’ve preformed well enough you’ll enter the knock-out stage of the competition. It actually makes possible participation wider and more varied, as in effect everyone is entering at 1300TV.


Are you saying that you will need to qualify to make the major (like a minimum of a 13-2 record or some other arbitrary measure) to qualify rather than building a team and throwing it in irrespective of win record?

I like it but I would make some tournaments Open (ie anyone who wants a crack) and others invitational (I.e. 13+ winners and best records in the season per race)

Interesting....
JackH



Joined: Oct 04, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 14, 2020 - 21:48 Reply with quote Back to top

Could it be possible to have different season budget divisions? Low division of 1350k and high division 1750k. Helps keep the players that enjoy high TV games getting their fix.
mister__joshua



Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 14, 2020 - 22:39
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

ClayInfinity wrote:
Are you saying that you will need to qualify to make the major (like a minimum of a 13-2 record or some other arbitrary measure) to qualify rather than building a team and throwing it in irrespective of win record?

I like it but I would make some tournaments Open (ie anyone who wants a crack) and others invitational (I.e. 13+ winners and best records in the season per race)

Interesting....


I was sort of suggesting that, that’s certainly an option. I was thinking more like ‘top 64 coaches’ or maybe ‘top 3 from each race’ and vary the conditions for each tournament, sort of like the qualifiers are varied now. You could certainly have one (or all of them) open to all players if that’s what people preferred. I though it would give something to achieve during the season, like how currently in American Football teams want to make the playoffs.

You still have a divisional champion, which would be the equivalent of the box trophy. You could even seed your tournaments by league record.

_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude

Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum
Uber



Joined: Mar 22, 2004

Post   Posted: Aug 14, 2020 - 23:35 Reply with quote Back to top

The more I think about it, the more I realize the new skill system can only work with aggressive seasons and low cap. If you try to give a break to the block/guard saurus, you're opening the door to claw/mb chaos.

If there's going to be high TV play on FUMBBL, which I would certainly like, it will need more than a few tweaks to the numbers I fear.

It sucks that GW simply gave up on balancing high TV play, but hopefully we can find a solution that doesn't result in the big teams being effectively banished from all open play.

_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict.
Arthas85



Joined: Apr 27, 2006

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2020 - 01:10 Reply with quote Back to top

Uber wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I realize the new skill system can only work with aggressive seasons and low cap. If you try to give a break to the block/guard saurus, you're opening the door to claw/mb chaos.

If there's going to be high TV play on FUMBBL, which I would certainly like, it will need more than a few tweaks to the numbers I fear.

It sucks that GW simply gave up on balancing high TV play, but hopefully we can find a solution that doesn't result in the big teams being effectively banished from all open play.


With skill selection and the possibility to take doubles on demand, only aggressive seasons and low cap can work (and that is quite sad unfortunately). Otherwise, you would end up with monster teams even worse than those that you see on majors (spam of blodge/guard/mighty blow dwarves could be possible for example or other crazy stuff).
Imho, just from a purely theoretical point of view, probably only the old rules of skill selection but with a ban on stat advancements (or with the new or generally revised cost of doubles and stat advancements) could work to make the game decent at high tv.
lautrehamon



Joined: Nov 18, 2017

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2020 - 01:17 Reply with quote Back to top

A lot of interesting thoughts in that tread.
Despite being one of the guy who has one big team ready for each XFL, I'm curious to see the change in competitive division and mostly agree with Christer's plan so far. I'm convinced a fresh start, right for next box trophy season, is the best way to do that.

Howewer

SzieberthAdam wrote:



With the currently planned season settings, this is over. I know that the number one goal is to play as per the GW rules so I accept the coming of seasons. Yet I am unhappy with the diversion from the rulebook from the first day. 10k per game, 10k per win, 5k per draw, 1350k budget, this is house ruling, again. I suggest 15 games long seasons, no cap. That would make 1000k+300..600k+200kish treasury budget for redraft (not counting with the additional gold for tourney participation) -> 1750kish teams at season start. Note that a significant part of the budget will be wasted on agent's fee anyway. Yet these teams might go above 2000 until season end. Still, more lasting injuries and agent's fee will make it a grind.

Nice for me. There would be big teams and high TV BB. There would be some space to create a team for your personal coaching style.




For me, The 1350 cap and deviation from seasons prize per game in the rulebook seem a bit weird, and carry a great danger, in association with the new skills system : we're going to see a lot of really similar teams, even clones, at 1350 - which is so low even with 10k per games than it's more a fixed value for redraft than a cap.

Considering that we won't see stat freaks anymore in that ruleset, than agent fee is a really punishing system by itself, and that we'll still have a matchmaking system based on TV, I really don't see the need to enforce such a low cap. With 15 games per season, 20k per games and wins, we would have a large majority of coach between 1400 and 1600 + treasury at end of season, so probably 1600-1800 to rebuy. Count more or less 100k in agent fees after first season and we'll land in the 1500-1700 TV to restart. Doesn't feel too punishing for less experienced coach, nor really too high. Perhaps, a cap around 1800 could be set to avoid too much benefits from a good tourney run.

If the plan is to reduce drastically high TV Bloodbowl, I would still prefer to have 10 games per season, using the rulebook pricing system, than the suggested homemade rules and 1350 cap.
Kondor



Joined: Apr 04, 2008

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2020 - 05:40 Reply with quote Back to top

Balle2000 wrote:
SzieberthAdam wrote:
However, FUMBBL seems to diverge from the rulebook because of a meta goal: to make the official tournaments easily accessible for newcomers.

Stellar analysis Szieberth. Thumbs up.

I refrained from quoting the whole thing, but it made perfect sense.


+1
tussock



Joined: May 29, 2011

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2020 - 07:14 Reply with quote Back to top

So a few things come to mind.

1: Treasury in BB20 is bigger than in our custom BB16. Expensive Mistakes kicks in higher and slower, and income is much higher per game, so treasuries of near 500k are easily in reach. People talking about uncapped teams need to know the rules provide a randomised treasury somewhere between 150k and 500k just by saving for your last five games.

2: Without a cap, that diverse randomised treasury situation is the largest determinant of your redraft TV. Even a ten game season would vary from 1400 to 1850, which, like, it's a big range to start. Fifteen games would start between 1500 to 2050. That's not better. They suggest a cap for a reason, y'all.

3: Your TV grows sharply after redraft. In the first five games you will average 400k winnings in BB20, and can just put that into filling out any positionals you swapped out.

--

And just in general, better coaches will have substantially bigger and stronger teams after 15 games, they don't need them to be already massively bigger at the start of each season.

People who play a lot can just set up dozens of teams at their peak or cycle one team for the perfect stats dozens of times. They don't need a bigger starting TV for a season on top of that.

A long season with a modest cap provides a large TV range to play in. Build a bench fast and spread skills to get high TV quicker, keep trim and load up a couple players on stat gambles to stay lower TV. Play where you like, against what you like, same as always.

Like, box trophy's been good. Top players starting new teams and playing just a few games with 'em. SWL is fantastic with BB16 seasons, even though lots of people didn't like the sound of it, it's as big as it's ever been now, since way back in LRB4 days. Seasons are good stuff. Get some.

_________________
ImageImage
Kondor



Joined: Apr 04, 2008

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2020 - 08:32 Reply with quote Back to top

I don't think most people would complain if TV topped out between 1900 and 2000. The problem is that people don't want to have their team slashed to 1350-1400 overnight after spending many hours building it. Many people like to see their team grow regardless of if they will enter a tournament or not. Many find high TV games enjoyable and more interesting. Sure losing players is part of the deal but having it happen in mass off the pitch is extremely demotivating.

If you could figure out a way to have teams that are maxed out hover around 1900-2000 I doubt you would get many complaints. (Who am I kidding you would always get complaints.)
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2020 - 10:44 Reply with quote Back to top

Kondor wrote:
I don't think most people would complain if TV topped out between 1900 and 2000. The problem is that people don't want to have their team slashed to 1350-1400 overnight after spending many hours building it. Many people like to see their team grow regardless of if they will enter a tournament or not. Many find high TV games enjoyable and more interesting. Sure losing players is part of the deal but having it happen in mass off the pitch is extremely demotivating.

If you could figure out a way to have teams that are maxed out hover around 1900-2000 I doubt you would get many complaints. (Who am I kidding you would always get complaints.)


For me, this is where a lot of angst comes from. Losing players on the pitch is a cause and effect - the perfunctory 3 LOS blocks killed a guy - that's the game. I RIPed a Legend after burning an Apo by accident then leaving him exposed to a block in spite of the danger - that's the game.

Selecting who I keep and who I don't - that's bureaucratic decision making. Yeah, I still have a choice but it feels less a part of the game in what I enjoy about BB. I like that 'anything can happen on the pitch, the odds just define how likely' sensation I get while playing.

Off the pitch, I get that sensation from skill rolls - anything can happen with skill rolls. And the function is there's no 'bad' outcomes from it but the choice you make with what the rolls allow for. I like that there is a forgiving value added way of approaching random skills at status quo. And I have played enough to see some real stat beasts and some double devils which I like for the rarity factor and 'can you believe this goofball with his MA7 AG4 Bull Centaur?' reactions. It's fun having a blessing from Nuffle that's singularly yours in the metaspace. It's like having a unique hotrod at the car show, not because it's the top performer (which it is) but because nobody else has that hotrod.

I'll cop to wanting to have players that make the game easier for me, but that's not the thrill of the skill primarily, that's the benefit of the skill and stat combos. I want unique players without having to carry the full costs of it in choice, regret, and actual in game costs.

Both those impulses are what drives Higher TV as a consequence for wanting a novel and unique team along with spite for coaches who think Higher TV is an affront to the entire BB experience. I'll never lament the journey to going over 3200 with Coca Loca BBL, it was a challenge that has been hard to replicate even though I did it once. I'll have to keep an eye out for similar spiteful achievements under BB2020
SzieberthAdam



Joined: Aug 31, 2008

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2020 - 11:09 Reply with quote Back to top

Thanks for your point tussock, for some reason I was hard to understand how big treasury can go. I will make a redraft simulator to have a better sight.

_________________
"I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favour, and who then asketh: 'Am I a dishonest player?' - for he is willing to succumb."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spake Zarathustra, Zarathustra's Discourses, 4.
mister__joshua



Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Post   Posted: Aug 15, 2020 - 11:49
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

SzieberthAdam wrote:
Thanks for your point tussock, for some reason I was hard to understand how big treasury can go. I will make a redraft simulator to have a better sight.


Yes, the problem arises because Treasury is a disproportionate amount of your rebuy total. That’s what the (optional) cap is there to solve.

Each game played earns you 20k rebuy, plus 20k for a win and an average 70k winnings, so your treasury will grow at roughly double the rate of your other earnings. Expensive Mistakes makes this relatively save up to about the 500k mark. Not having a cap will result in people trying to push this treasury higher and then gambling their whole season on the last EM roll, with a 3+ chance of staying a monster or being almost wiped out on a 1 or 2.

Edit: I think ways to resolve this (other than the cap) are either to not count treasury in rebuy totals, or perhaps more palatable would be to have all teams experience a ‘Catastrophe’ at the end of the season. That way they could keep tournament winnings plus the 2D6 amount left after the EM. Both would be house rules, but would make the variance after rebuy much lower.

_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude

Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum
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