JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
 Posted:
Jan 05, 2026 - 01:28 |
 
|
Well, the Norse will not shift much in value (it'll drop below 1300k on average in game 1), but they will have the same lack of fat going into the first week of every season. Week 1 teams are almost always weaker for exactly the same reason: they've prioritized the stuff they can't get back with Winnings. So in the first week, those two teams will run into each other and the Norse will have an edge, but it's not nearly as much as it would be if the Norse were on, say, Week 6. The Norse TV will only move up like 100k over that 10-game span because they'll just be buying pigs and stats pretty much, but they'll get quite a bit stronger. The Orcs will get stronger too, but their TV will go up 400k or something.
This is so not about Stunty teams. I'm not considering Stunty teams (unless you count non-Stunty teams with a few Stunties, because that's definitely part of the convo). Stunties not being viable in Box is not a major concern. Lesser-played teams, and deliberately disadvantaged teams, individually being nerfed by the format, or even one more central roster, no big deal. This will affect every roster that likes taking "Elite" skills, all the Brawlin' Bruisers rosters (including Dwarfs, but because of Bribery and Corruption, not Brawlin' Bruisers), and every roster that conspicuously gets to avoid skill selection. That's more than half of what people would actually be playing in a healthy community. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor.
Last edited by JackassRampant on Jan 05, 2026; edited 1 time in total |
|
Loon
Joined: Aug 14, 2024
|
| Posted:
Jan 05, 2026 - 01:42 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | Well, the Norse will not shift much in value (it'll drop below 1300k on average in game 1), but they will have the same lack of fat going into the first week of every season. Week 1 teams are almost always weaker for exactly the same reason: they've prioritized the stuff they can't get back with Winnings. So in the first week, those two teams will run into each other and the Norse will have an edge, but it's not nearly as much as it would be if the Norse were on, say, Week 6. The Norse TV will only move up like 100k over that 10-game span because they'll just be buying pigs and stats pretty much, but they'll get quite a bit stronger. The Orcs will get stronger too, but their TV will go up 400k or something.
This is so not about Stunty teams. I'm not considering Stunty teams (unless you count non-Stunty teams with a few Stunties, because that's definitely part of the convo). |
Okay so let's play this out. We are at S2G1. Orcs vs Norse at even TV in both yours and the current setup. S2G6 Orcs TV1700. Under your matchmaking there is a higher chance that the Orcs will match against the TV1300 Norse. Under the current, it is more likely that the orcs match against a TV 1700 Chaos or Elf team, but if those teams didn't roll the "desired" matchup will still happen. So the only benefit of your scheme is that the specific Norse vs Orc matchup happens more frequently for S2G6. Is this what it boils down to? |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 05, 2026 - 01:51 |
|
Wow, s2G6 1700? No, that's by the end of any given season. Postseason values won't climb a lot.
If you look at how elves and chaos build in this edition, you'll see very similar dynamics. Like, actually look at what all those teams will build into on average given SPP budgets and distributions. I don't want to throw my formulae out, because I don't want to give out any secrets, but I've crunched this and I know whereof I speak.
It's admittedly speculative, because there's no alternative, but the d6 MVP and the change in the definition of Casualties that came through in 2020 make it pretty consistently gameable if you account for coaching, and the stats on that stuff are readily available in the era of mighty Garcangel. It's hardly a science, but you can easily, like easily see how the TV flows tend to run if you take a look. I haven't looked at it from the perspective of the hapless yet, because I don't think even the hapless should forecast on their own haplessness, but for average and good results, the game clearly tends to push teams into roster/age-driven TV bands, and this is clearly done on purpose because a lot of times the key inducements sweet-spot into that gap in the game 8-12 range that they envision as their postseason.
I can't prove this, because that's not how speculation on new BB rules works. But the math is all there, and we can all play out the strategies in our heads. More to the point, my main point is, "don't be surprised when the initial Box results yield this problem," and not "we have to do something pre-emptively," so even if you don't envision the problem yourself, that shouldn't really impact your response, yes? You just need to look for it. You know, be a Blood Bowl coach and collect some damn perspectives for your arsenal.
That's how I got here. I was looking at how to win in league, and realized the answer I came to was radically different from the consensus forming on FUMBBL Discord (including my own early opinions). I looked at it a bit, and saw that this difference was between age-based matchmaking and value-based matchmaking, and further that this was because the designers had partly repurposed value, so it would produce a reflexive effect if used for matchmaking. Hence this thread. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Loon
Joined: Aug 14, 2024
|
| Posted:
Jan 05, 2026 - 14:42 |
|
Game 6, game 10, it doesn’t matter. All you give is word salad. Terrible idea, hard pass. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 05, 2026 - 16:11 |
|
| Loon wrote: | | Game 6, game 10, it doesn’t matter. All you give is word salad. Terrible idea, hard pass. |
It's not word salad, you just don't know enough to evaluate what's sitting in front of you. Not sure it's worth spelling out, just be ready for "I told you so" this summer when Box doesn't look anything like any other BB format.
Game 6, 1700k is unlikely, that's all I said. I was talking end of season there. I also think GW kinda intended for things to get more "interesting" down the stretch.
I've said all along that I could be wrong, and it's not so much that I'm advocating a hard course of action as that I'm advocating we look into our options on this front and consider piloting a switch if things turn out the way I think they will.
Is that what you said "terrible idea, hard pass" to? That even if we do wander into a pit, we should just let it happen? Or are you just acting on a fnord toward something that doesn't make sense to you because you haven't been paying attention to what GW's other design hand is doing? |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 06, 2026 - 12:38 |
|
"Not sure it's worth spelling out"
Yet it is worth letting this disaster of a thread continue for 17 pages??
We've been asking for it to be spelled out. We need it spelled out, because it has not been clear / doesn't make sense / exists only in your head / solution is worse than the problem / sounds like word salad / etc etc
Currently we remain unconvinced. So if you actually can spell it out, please do, otherwise it will continue to be disregarded
Please reply with a brief post, solid step by step reasoning, no alluding to intuition, just logic and facts
It needs hard evidence or concrete argument to back up the claim, otherwise we're just going round and round and the thread should die |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 06, 2026 - 12:45 |
|
Maybe there is an actual problem in the making, but I just don't think you've articulated it well enough for me to grasp it
I need it laid out real simple, like:
This change X means Y therefore Z. So A and B will happen
Because at the minute, I am still 100% of the opinion:
TV remains the best measure of team-strength we have, therefore (with season1 protection active) matching by TV will continue to give the best pairings for box games |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 06, 2026 - 12:55 |
|
Okay, yeah, I'm just having problems articulating it concisely and getting frustrated. Sorry. Have a goddamn novella worth of number-crunching here that there's no way I'll post.
What I'm looking at is that some rosters, like Norse and Dwarfs, can camp on 1300k and just get stronger and stronger without ever seeing much TV fluctuation. Other rosters, like Orcs and Humans, will be quite competitive at the same age as the Norse plus inducements, but at the same TV they look like newborn babes.
Here's why.
Norse start with almost all their important skills already, so all they have to buy is stats. Stats are a lot cheaper now in SPP terms, MVPs are targeted but you have to spread them on linos a little, and while the average stat price has gone up in terms of cost per stat roll, this is because the chance of the "good stuff" has doubled, and that same good stuff has become better.
By contrast, half-price skills are gone, which doesn't make randoms necessarily worse but does cause TV to rise, and they've been replaced by a 10k TV penalty on anything really good, like the skills the Norse get to spam for starting cash. A Norse Lino with +AV is now guaranteed to be 20k cheaper than a Human Lino with Block, and only costs as many SPP as a Lino with Block and something else you don't want as much, for another 20k.
This doesn't make the bloatier teams bad for their age, but it does guarantee that the Dorfs will get bribes and the Norse will see a lot of Skrorg, while the Orcs and Humans won't lack for the skills they need, and in the end "incredibly compact plus inducements" vs "big and bloaty, but with a point" becomes a fun matchup.
But if the "big and bloaty, but with a point" isn't big, it's not such a great time, even without the inducements. At least against the Norse. They might be competitive against the Dwarfs, but only because the Dwarfs get denied their fun.
Is that better? It's hard to tell what is and isn't obvious from where I sit. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor.
Last edited by JackassRampant on Jan 06, 2026; edited 2 times in total |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 06, 2026 - 13:01 |
|
| Sp00keh wrote: | Maybe there is an actual problem in the making, but I just don't think you've articulated it well enough for me to grasp it
I need it laid out real simple, like:
This change X means Y therefore Z. So A and B will happen
Because at the minute, I am still 100% of the opinion:
TV remains the best measure of team-strength we have, therefore (with season1 protection active) matching by TV will continue to give the best pairings for box games |
you are 100% right too.
The only good idea in this thread is to bring back rookie protection in to the forumla. However that means less games will be drawn. Some people would rather not play these matches, such as 3 game teams vs 10 game teams, some people would...
If there were more coaches using black box i think this would be a reasonable thing to bring back... As things currently stand its probably best just to leave things alone. |
_________________
 |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 06, 2026 - 13:05 |
|
I'm not proposing an immediate course of action. I'm proposing we throw around a few ideas as to what to do if I'm right. Certainly I won't be playing Box until I can either see that it's not a problem or that it has been resolved, because I can't imagine how anybody could have fun in the world I see as the logical upshot of the new rules and TV matchmaking.
I laid out in the post directly above probably the most concise argument I can provide: I've been stewing over this for quite some time. Apologies for going off when I kinda saw something and wasn't sure, but I figured I'd get help in sussing it out, and not pushback over whether a new edition might mean a new look at things in the first place. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 06, 2026 - 13:12 |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 06, 2026 - 13:43 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Garion wrote: |
If there were more coaches using black box i think this would be a reasonable thing to bring back... As things currently stand its probably best just to leave things alone. |
It's a tough one. You could be losing people because of their 3 game teams running into 10 game teams. |
Maybe. I'd rather not face those teams... but I guess you have to draw the line somewhere... |
_________________
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 06, 2026 - 13:56 |
|
@JR Ok actually that is clearer now, thank you
I am still a bit dubious though, for a few reasons:
1- Norse in 2020 could already minmax very ruthlessly - I've previously qualified for Steel Trophy w Norse and Amazons by staying at around 1000k, just adding Block on the blockless positionals, a couple randoms, and stats on the carrier and basically farming rookie teams like a scumbag. But then got KO from trophy immediately because I was so underdeveloped, hah
So they were very effective for the TV, but struggled in a games-played matchup
Obvious solution is to match by TV but also bracket so u can't face opponent with significant games-played difference,
but then obvious (and serious) problem is less frequent matchups made
2- It doesn't seem radically different to me in 2020 vs 2025
Prices got adjusted, including Elite skills went up, stats went down, so the ideal build meta will change but not in a revolutionary way
3- Dwarves will want to stay low TV and get games-played matchups to get Bribes for the Roller, ok yea makes sense.
TV matching will suck for them, but I don't think it's enough to force change on the box matching
4- Some teams will gain TV fast, some teams bloat in a TV-inefficient way, Ok yea but that's always been the case
Box being box, it's all just part of managing ur team imo. I'm pretty ruthless with team building so to me it all seems normal, but yea I can see it's a sharktank for those less experienced |
|
|
Zelmor
Joined: Sep 29, 2022
|
| Posted:
Jan 06, 2026 - 14:13 |
|
You cannot balance matchmaking around 1-2 teams. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 06, 2026 - 14:15 |
|
I'm really saying that between TV matching and 1350k redraft, Norse will be the bane of every freshly redrafted team. Gatekeeper.
Also, inducements are better than 2020, and the value discrepancies are larger and accumulate faster.
Again, it might mean less than I suspect, but we should be clear-eyed about it. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
|
|
| |
The Great 2020>20...
Search
