VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
 Posted:
Mar 14, 2012 - 23:53 |
 
|
Because I'm a numbers and formulas person, one of the things I have been toying with is the idea of an adjustment formula for TV matching that will apply a virtual increase in TV to teams that engage in minmaxing such that they face more appropriate teams and (more importantly) don't face similar TV, but less developed teams.
Before anyone gets defensive... no, I don't really expect Christer to implement this in Box, it is more of a thought experiment.
I'm hoping some folks can help me out with this by:
1) Giving examples of what they think represent minmaxed teams by way of actual existing Box teams they feel are clear cases of minmaxing.
2) Maybe giving an opinion of what TV level (other than their actual TV level, I assume, since you wouldn't feel a team was minmaxed if it was actually appropriate for its TV) the team should be playing at.
With enough examples and some sort of consensus as to the adjustment those examples need, a formula that gives an adjusted TV for any given team should be easy to create. |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 14, 2012 - 23:59 |
|
A disproportionate number of clawpomb or blodge players for its TV would be a decent indication. Lack of RR, reserves and apo is another. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 00:03 |
|
The main time "minmax" is a problem is when a team with a lot of games, such as Pact, who can take 20-30 games to develop clawbomb marauders, pick on brand new teams. None come to mind immediately, but there's certainly an issue.
It's similar with the 1560 1 bull, 6 CDs(usually with 2 legend killers), 4 rookie hobs build.
The risk is, it's easy to get knocked down to that level by casualties. Injuries can force you to be dangerously close to minmaxing, and there's certainly an enjoyment factor to BloodBowl...if I say, had 2 saurus MNG, and a minmax formula triggered and put me against a clawbomber 200 TV higher, I would not be amused. It's because minmaxing is a fine art, and if your formula is too aggressive, you'll cripple team rebuilding. |
_________________
http://www.calculateyour.tv - an easy way to work out specific team builds.
 |
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 00:03 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | A disproportionate number of clawpomb or blodge players for its TV would be a decent indication. Lack of RR, reserves and apo is another. |
A lot of that just sounds like coach preference rather than trying to game the TV system. I was under the impression that the primary trait of minmax teams was a few highly developed players and then the rest of the roster padded with undeveloped players such that the team's overall TV is low, but a few players are much stronger than you'd expect to see at that TV range.
At least, that was what folks told me when I asked about the difference between TV optimization and "minmaxing". |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 00:21 |
|
Can we have an adjustment formula for teams with too much guard too? I find that hard to play against... |
_________________
 |
|
KennethLumina
Joined: Oct 23, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 00:38 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | | Can we have an adjustment formula for teams with too much guard too? I find that hard to play against... |
But that is my team motto |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 00:41 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | 1) Giving examples of what they think represent minmaxed teams by way of actual existing Box teams they feel are clear cases of minmaxing.
|
Mike, check this:
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=685753 |
Last edited by MattDakka on %b %15, %2012 - %00:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
giorss
Joined: Nov 22, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 00:43 |
|
and also the problem that TV is nice, but number of matches and win rate of the team are also important and they should be counted when creating matches.
only TV based matches creates minmax for sure.
ok there will be some new ways to do a new minmax, but maybe it will be harder
and maybe some problems in an algorithm creation, but maybe a % for every item would solve it. |
_________________
 |
|
Diced
Joined: Dec 12, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 01:05 |
|
MinMax is just proper TV management. I don't see the problem.
There is perhaps a problem with the design of the Chaos Pact team in my view, that allows a build of cheap 50k players with GSM (and even P ? I'll never know why that was done) normal skill access. Clawbombing is an example of highly effective efficient skill selection, and this build gives an incredibly cheap path to get 10 players like that on the pitch, plus an AG4 ball player - the lack of which is the 'weakness' in other chaos team build options.
So the problem is not specifically minmaxing or TV management or 'good coaching'. It's that there's a little balance issue in the game's races..and as long as such issues exist they will always be exploited as coaches grapple for any advantage.
Tinkering with the not-broken box game matching algorithm is not a solution. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 01:17 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | | JimmyFantastic wrote: | | A disproportionate number of clawpomb or blodge players for its TV would be a decent indication. Lack of RR, reserves and apo is another. |
A lot of that just sounds like coach preference rather than trying to game the TV system. I was under the impression that the primary trait of minmax teams was a few highly developed players and then the rest of the roster padded with undeveloped players such that the team's overall TV is low, but a few players are much stronger than you'd expect to see at that TV range.
|
I probably mentioned this before but... teams build with few stars and lots of rookies aren't worth the sweat. Bloodbowl is just not designed to only develop teams higher and higher. Giving older teams an edge over younger teams is a more productive approach then doing the opposite.
I wrote some lines about this before but it comes down to this: There is one issue with the rules and that's the clawpombers. Clawpombers are cheap.
It's not an issue that teams have blodge. It's not an issue a team has strip ball or hypnotic gaze or leap. Just because you can't stall out the game as you are used to, embracing a boring standart strategy doesn't mean the game is broken. |
|
|
Zlefin
Joined: Apr 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 01:25 |
|
the problem only really occurs in box, and some in ranked i'd imagine. But it only exists in large online open setups; stuff works fine in leagues.
As to the interesting math; i'd say it mostly comes from a) reserves counting at full TV value; b) having 1-3 legends plus a bunch of rookies. |
|
|
Wallace
Joined: May 26, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 01:27 |
|
I can't see how you are talking about anything other than Team Strength (TS). What you are saying is that TV does not accurately represent the relative strengths of the teams and you want to invent something different that does. This is the philosophy behind TS which has been discussed at great length. I can't see that there is anything new to be found here.
Edit: Just to clarify, by TS I'm not referring to any particular implementation of TS, just the concept. The exact TS formula used for LRB4 evolved over time as new exploits were revealed and neutered. An LRB6 TS would require the same slow evolution and tweaking. Again though, TS has been discussed over and over in the context of BB and LRB6 and the meat of those discussions is the same as what you are trying to provoke here. |
|
|
happy69gilmour
Joined: Oct 06, 2010
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 01:53 |
|
I think TV's need to be tweeked. If skills acquired through leveling where represented by higher values say a generic 10k increase. This i believe would help alleviate some of the pressure between "Awesome teams" and "noob" teams.
To extrapolate from that point and to help reduce the effectiveness of clawpomb. I think that mutation skills should cost even more than that. Let's say again a generic increase of 10k a skill. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 01:54 |
|
That's not minmax.
Minmax was when Blader had that team with just 2 legends at 1050 TV. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 01:56 |
|
| happy69gilmour wrote: | I think TV's need to be tweeked. If skills acquired through leveling where represented by higher values say a generic 10k increase. This i believe would help alleviate some of the pressure between "Awesome teams" and "noob" teams.
To extrapolate from that point and to help reduce the effectiveness of clawpomb. I think that mutation skills should cost even more than that. Let's say again a generic increase of 10k a skill. |
Nice opinion.
However, they don't. |
|
|
|
|
Problem to organize ...
Search
