argos_72
Joined: Mar 02, 2007
|
 Posted:
Oct 03, 2021 - 21:54 |
 
|
| mekutata wrote: |
Gotta keep in mind that inducements changed since BB16. There might exist excessive data for winrates based on TV/inducements for BB16 in old settings but the new rules are still "young" and just recently part of fumbbl.
The strength of inducements might have changed.
Some NAF tournaments banned star players because they were soo strong. And eventually these players will gain their special skills here (f.i. fouling twice with Black Gobbo).
Also it is unlikely you will meet TV 2200 CLAWMB Chaos Dwarfs as soon as the redraft after X games is integrated. In general you will |
Yes indeed, the incentives have changed and I will have to wait for a series of matches before I can make a final judgement. From what I can see though, especially some starplayers are really expensive for what they offer. I'm not sure if the inducements in bb2020 are more powerful than the inducements in BB2016. We'll see
And yes of course the redraft will avoid the high TV gap which for me is a good thing. |
|
|
Bazakastine
Joined: Mar 21, 2014
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2021 - 06:35 |
|
| Chrisdekok wrote: | This is what I find contradictory. On one side there is a general opinion that inducements are too weak. On the other side I read a lot of posts about house rules limiting inducements like star players and wizards because they are too strong. I haven't read about any house rules that make inducements stronger. So which way do you want to have it  |
Inducements can be incredibly strong in the right players hands while also generally not being as good as extra TV on your team. What this leads to is the players who can use inducements well (normally the very good players) will both have an advantage over a worse coach as the 1200 TV team or the 1600 TV team if they matchup. |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2021 - 11:22 |
|
Regarding the original topic, TV is definitely a bad way to match now, mainly as it'll reward 10k skills over 20k skills.
They're random but that just means you have to cycle players. Which means a team with 100's of games will have the opportunity to save a lot of TV
Or at the same TV, you have 1 team with say 10x good 20k skills and another team with 20x good 10k skills.
This is particularly problematic currently without Seasons, it rewards endless building and cycling
The solution is mainly Seasons, but also matching by games-played-in-current-season:
- If the season is 15 games, you can only match with teams who're within +/- 3 games-played of you
- So if you've played 5 games this season, you can play against teams who've had 2-8 games this season?
Just ignore TV, instead inducments are an imperfect way to compensate TV differences
Need to do something slightly different for teams in their first season...
This makes [C] work like one big league, as the closest we can get to rulebook's intentions (imo) |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2021 - 12:12 |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2021 - 13:50 |
|
Fine..
What I said does apply to Gamefinder, as that has filtering by TV currently
But yea it'd be mainly about box scheduler
Box could become a lot simpler, it'd just need to match up valid pairs, like Gamefinder but blind.
It wouldn't need all the stable-roommates stuff, or the 15 min timer.
It'd need to block repeatedly playing the same opponents though, to stop collusion
We wouldn't need Scheduler as well as Gamefinder, actually. So it'd be a single division, single method of getting games.
Click 'get a game' and you get a game against a similarly progressed team
This is closer to what a big TT league would be, you turn up each week and get your opponent, right? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2021 - 14:39 |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2021 - 14:55 |
|
About Box pairing, a suggestion to increase the games played even in low traffic timezones:
let a draw happen with just 2 coaches activating (or 3), but applying the 1 match on 10 rule to prevent abuse and collusion. If 1 on 10 is too many it could be 1 on 5.
A draw could happen every 10 minutes instead of 15.
Moreover, hide the number of coaches activating. That makes a bit harder to arrange collusion matches.
"Some coaches have activated" is more vague than "1 coach has activated".
If you want to play vs a friend a rigged match and you know he's the only one activating you are 100% sure you will find him.
This is why it's better to hide the number of activating coaches in the Box. |
|
|
mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2021 - 16:04 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: |
"Some coaches have activated" is more vague than "1 coach has activated".
|
I have activated in the past when I saw there are coaches wanting to play but not enough for a box round. Would not be able to do so if we don't see the nbumber of activating coaches.. |
_________________
 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2021 - 16:13 |
|
Why? You can always activate. You don't have to know the number of coaches in order to activate.
Knowing the exact number of coaches doesn't increase the chance of the draw.
You activate, check when the draw happens (every 15 minutes or 10 if possible) and see if you have found a game.
I'm suggesting to reduce the number of coaches required to find a game from 4 to 3 or 2.
To make abuse less likely I suggested the rule 1 on 10 or 1 or 5 and not knowing the exact number of coaches who activated. |
|
|
mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2021 - 16:54 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | Why? You can always activate. You don't have to know the number of coaches in order to activate.
Knowing the exact number of coaches doesn't increase the chance of the draw.
You activate, check when the draw happens (every 15 minutes or 10 if possible) and see if you have found a game.
I'm suggesting to reduce the number of coaches required to find a game from 4 to 3 or 2.
To make abuse less likely I suggested the rule 1 on 10 or 1 or 5 and not knowing the exact number of coaches who activated. |
Simply I saw there was one coach missing to activate and have a seeding.
I wouldn't know if there are 2, 3 or enough coaches activating without the information given. |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2021 - 16:58 |
|
Why do you want to know the exact number? Just activate and check if you have been paired when the draw happens.
The important thing is reducing the required number of coaches in order to find a game, not to know how many activated in advance. |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2021 - 20:07 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Are you suggesting not bring back blackbox? It is an option. |
Yes, I'm suggesting the site just needs one main division [C] with one method of finding games
Basically a combination of Gamefinder and Scheduler, that matches on 'games played in current season' within +/- 3 games, and (mostly?) ignores TV
It'd be blind matching, so you just activate your teams and then if there's suitable, not-repeated opponents, you get assigned a matchup immediately.
IMO Gamefinder is flawed because you can pick, which shouldn't be possible...
Scheduler is flawed because (1) TV is now a bad metric, (2) 15min wait is bad, (3) stable roommate constraint is bad (needing to make 2+ valid matchups at the same time, it can't output single valid matchups)
It does require Seasons
Seasons mean no hideous killer teams, so picking to avoid getting your team destroyed is not really needed now
It does also mean you probably won't care about losing players if you Conceed. Concessions need to be thought about, penalised in some way
Teams in their first season either need to start with +gold to get up to speed, or be treated differently (can't play a team more than 3-5 games older than you?) |
|
|
mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2021 - 22:48 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | Why do you want to know the exact number? Just activate and check if you have been paired when the draw happens.
The important thing is reducing the required number of coaches in order to find a game, not to know how many activated in advance. |
I just wrote before why I needed to know the exact numbers/how I used those numbers to make sure there can be games.
Reducing the required number of activated coaches is maybe a nice idea but not reality atm. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
All Star Bowl!
Search
