Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
 Posted:
Aug 19, 2026 - 16:19 |
 
|
| RDaneel wrote: | | The problem is that the matchmaking fumbbl algortithm tries to match the TV indipendently of the game played. So it is always very good in box to keep CTV as low as possible. Also in case you are activating ONE team and there is only ONE coach besides you activating this also is a risk situation . |
Quite the opposite! I activated (and always do) with several teams, eight for this particular draw, several of them around the ten or eleven game mark to match with the opponent even if the opponent had only activated that one team. But my three-game team was matched with them instead.
(It's an entirely separate issue, but any problems with the scheduler generally tend to mean that you get 'punished' if you like for activating with many teams, when activating multiple teams should be the encouraged behaviour. Activating solo teams is instead incentivised on an individual level. But that's another topic!) |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2026 - 16:33 |
|
| Sp00keh wrote: | | instead the real answer is simple. when u are playing in a TV-matched environment, treat it as such and remember to be TV efficient. don't take bad skills, don't grow in a bloaty way, etc |
That's not the real answer, unfortunately.
I like playing Blood Bowl. I an not uninterested in playing TV-Speadsheet-Bowl (which is nothing to do with Blood Bowl itself but an artefact arising entirely from TV-matching), rather I am actively disinterested in it.
So if your suggestion is "play TV-Spreadsheet-Bowl instead" then that really translates to "stop playing".
I'll keep playing so long as playing Blood Bowl (rather than TV-Spreadsheet-Bowl) is tolerated by the system to a reasonable extent. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2026 - 16:58 |
|
Taking efficient skills helps in private scheduled leagues as well, not just in the TV-matched Box games.
It's not Spreadsheet-Bowl, it's just that some skills are badly designed and suck for their cost.
It's an artefact rising from bad design. |
Last edited by MattDakka on Aug 19, 2026; edited 1 time in total |
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2026 - 17:26 |
|
Of course. That's not TV-Spreadsheet-Bowl though. In Blood Bowl, you assess your team development choices against the equivalent petty cash cost that you could otherwise have in inducements, and with regard to all the different ways you could have developed a team of that age.
TV-Spreadsheet-Bowl is about a meta-system of gaming the knowledge of how your next game will be scheduled strictly on a TV basis, so "what alternative choices could I have made in my development path?" becomes an irrelevant question (because the development path is irrelevant, only TV is relevant). It's a complete deviation from the teambuilding incentives and trade-offs of Blood Bowl. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2026 - 17:33 |
|
Team building and growth, even in scheduled leagues (which I guess is the normal Blood Bowl you refer to), are not good for all the teams. Some teams just want to stay low TV and get Inducements, other ones want to get big (although, if the Season is short, it could be hard anyway).
TV is a factor in private leagues, it doesn't lose relevance just because the games are scheduled. It could be even more gameable if you know in advance who your next opponent will be.
That said, the fact there is Season Re-Draft seems to suggest that too much team growth is not what designers wanted. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2026 - 17:56 |
|
"Stay low and get inducements."
Precisely!
Not: "Stay low and get matched against a different team."
Completely different incentive structure and trade-offs. The decision point effectively shifts from "How do I compare my team-building choice against the alternative choices I could have made" to "How do I compare my team-building choice against alternative choices that I had no chance to make, but someone in an entirely different situation playing essentially a different game might have made (regardless of whether or not they were meta-gaming that to be the case)." |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2026 - 18:17 |
|
I warned y'all about this when these rules came out. I didn't know quite how they'd play, and my specifics were a bit off, but TV matchmaking in this edition is a little on the goofy side, because it's explicitly designed to match teams by games into the current season. (Yes, brand new rookies are in a different place from S2+ teams.) The underlying issue is that FUMBBL's Box matchmaker is a houserule that bends the game in a way it's no longer meant to bend. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2026 - 18:42 |
|
I find the Box matchmaking working quite well for BB2025, despite it being a houserule.
I have to wait for some time to find a match because I play only Season 2+ teams but I do other stuff while waiting.
The horrible huge TV gap experiences were a thing in CRP Box.
Currently I'm quite happy of the Box, I'd just like a shorter Season to face less developed teams but there are no impossible match-ups like in CRP Box, facing either minmaxed TV Cpomb teams at low TV or maxmaxed Cpomb teams at high TV. |
|
|
ph0enyx13
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Aug 19, 2026 - 21:40 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | Matching 3-game-old teams against 11-game-old teams is seriously not fun.
|
| RDaneel wrote: | | The problem is that the matchmaking fumbbl algortithm tries to match the TV indipendently of the game played. |
For what it's worth, I'm also of the opinion that it should be by games played because that simulates league play and lessens the impact on minmaxing.
| RDaneel wrote: |
3) be VERY vigilant when you have one team which played already three games, because at the third games you lose the rookie protection (for such reason is always good to try to keep CTV low)
|
| koadah wrote: |
I could be hallucinating but I'm pretty sure that at some point there was rookie protection for the first three games. |
I might be wrong, but when I looked at
the only rookie protection I saw as that season 1 teams didn't match with season 2+, but there was no rookie protection other than the TV difference threshold within season 1. |
|
|
Zelmor
Joined: Sep 29, 2022
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2026 - 00:40 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | I like playing Blood Bowl. I an not uninterested in playing TV-Speadsheet-Bowl (which is nothing to do with Blood Bowl itself but an artefact arising entirely from TV-matching), rather I am actively disinterested in it.
So if your suggestion is "play TV-Spreadsheet-Bowl instead" then that really translates to "stop playing".
I'll keep playing so long as playing Blood Bowl (rather than TV-Spreadsheet-Bowl) is tolerated by the system to a reasonable extent. |
That's the spirit! Just play the game and have fun! All this arguing back and forth, everyone and their big mouths.
Click Button. Play Game. Have Fun. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2026 - 01:02 |
|
When clicking the button to play the game delivers unfun, I think that's quite an important thing to talk about. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2026 - 02:19 |
|
Actually, we could probably put this to bed with some stats...
What are the TV deltas like among teams with 10 games? 12? 15?
If the differentials aren't humongous, this is an argument for moving the matchmaking basis from TV to age. Ditto if the differentials are large but a) roster-driven, and b) the bulk of consistent underdogs in an age-based matchmaking system would be expecting it.
It's possible we'd need a "recovery game" bit, so maybe something like each non-rookie MNG de-ages your team 1 game or something could do it without any effect on net suitability.
But seriously, this edition is designed for matchmaking by age. We should be doing that. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Zelmor
Joined: Sep 29, 2022
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2026 - 02:34 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | | When clicking the button to play the game delivers unfun, I think that's quite an important thing to talk about. |
Might need some time away from the computer if that is the case. God knows, I need that myself. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2026 - 02:46 |
|
Or maybe he's not the only one, and we should be comparing notes and looking for solutions rather than passively accepting the suboptimal. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2026 - 11:07 |
|
matching by gamesplayed isn't going to be more optimal, though
TV has its problems, sure. a lot of things are costed wrong
But it's still a more reliable measure than anything else we have, and I've seen no proof to the contrary
I'll bring this up again: a 10-game team at 1050k vs a 10-game team at 1550k would be a worse, less fun matchup than whatever the previous TV matching example was
fumbbl already has scheduled leagues where u can play with games-played matching
but the open [C] division is unscheduled, it has more freedom than that, and so can instead benefit from TV matching
fumbbl even already has unscheduled [C] division without TV matching option, use gamefinder and screen opponents by gamesplayed if u want
the whole complaint is kinda silly really as it does reduce to "i chose to play in the only TV-matched part of fumbbl, then i got a TV-matched game, but i didn't like it" |
|
|
|
|
| |
Elven Union roster t...
Search
