Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
 Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 02:40 |
 
|
as another team style that I would say strikes me as min/maxed, I present this example: http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=688536, 1030 TV, 9 blodgers
edit: If this team had 4 blitzers and a Thrower instead of 5 linemen, the TV would be 1210, which would be semi-reasonable; but for 9 blodgers, I would want to have, say, 2 tacklers, and for most (non dwarf) teams, that would generally put you into the 1250 to 1300 range (Which is PURE opinion, and the TV for a few tacklers could be COMPLETELY different, but that's my opinion anyway). So I would not want to face that team at less than 1250 TV range. |
|
|
Diced
Joined: Dec 12, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 02:56 |
|
Technically most non-stunty teams could actually have some tackle at TV 1030.
For sensible non-chaos teams it'd be even fairly normal....except everybody always chooses choppy skills first because choppy skills work best against the predominant choppy team builds which are typically lean on dodge.
But it is precisely because 99.9% of teams take MB, claw and PO instead of tackle - and maybe the LRB6 DP nerf which just makes PO that bit better - that you see teams like the above.
Nelphine's post is effectively a complaint that someone is trying to run with an alternative tactic to just clawbombing. But I think that this needs to be praised, not complained about. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 03:01 |
|
hum. No, my reason for mentioning is that: a TV 1030 team will play LOTS of noob TV 1000 teams. If they aren't dwarves, they probably can't handle 9 blodgers.
If the TV 1030 team plays against a team that has picked up a few games (lets say 5), on MOST teams, the first skills you are going to pick up are going to be block/wrestle. These still don't let you deal with blodgers. Combined with a few FF, you can easily hit 1100 and only have 1 or 2 players with a skill, and tackle will almost never be the first skill on a given player.
Now, note, I am not saying people should NOT play these amazons; I think that coach is being quite reasonable since it nicely avoids the clawbombers (and would probably beat those rare 1100 TV clawbombers it might meet anyway). I'm only saying, that against MOST (non dwarf) teams, 9 blodgers will be largely untouchable (and note that the team even has a few other skills thrown in too, which I think is very smart of the coach). I am saying that this is (possibly) an example of the kind of min/maxing that VoodooMike was looking for. |
|
|
Diced
Joined: Dec 12, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 03:05 |
|
Yeh I guess the all lino zon build is a classic case of this thing we now call 'minmaxing'.
But in calling it that, is it praise or criticism ? Or just nounage...
NB. That coach has accepted a situation where skills like MB, guard, and PO are doubles only...so there's a steep cost to his choices. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 03:08 |
|
For me, it is meant purely as nounage. Those zons probably won't ever kill my budding 5 game team, so all it can do is lower my win/TD/cas percentage, which, given my coaching ability, won't be much lower than it already was. I do think that team has a far higher win chance against any random team than almost anyone else in that TV range though, but it probably won't ever win any tournaments, so it evens out. |
|
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 05:06 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | 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. |
Some have suggested simply adding in an additional "games played" criteria for matching, but the problem I see with that is it then becomes important for teams to engage in this sort of minmaxing, because over time they'll face more and more opponents who do so.
| Zlefin wrote: | | 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. |
I'm aware it's a TV matched, perpetual play open league issue... that said, that's the setup where the most games are played.
| Wallace wrote: | | 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. |
Not trying to provoke a discussion at all beyond asking for examples of what people think are minmaxed teams and possibly what TV level they think those teams should be playing at. I'm obviously not GETTING that in response, for the most part (maybe two responses in two pages), but that is what I'm after.
| pythrr wrote: | | Minmax was when Blader had that team with just 2 legends at 1050 TV. |
Well, it probably is what a lot of people would define as minmax, just not nearly as intense as blader's team was.
Yeah, while I agree this team would be hard on low TV teams, I think this sort of thing can only be addressed by the whole TS concept, which is a whole different bag of worms, sadly. Anyone can, in pretty short order, create that amazon team, and amazons have a really high win% at low TVs.. and its all downhill from there. |
|
|
Ullakkomorko
Joined: Aug 10, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 08:17 |
|
To me it seems like the main issues are PO and the Chaos Pact roster. Having the over 50% chance of removing a player from the pitch on a knockdown often leads to very silly matches. Not always but sometimes and a bit too often. And a human lino that can get S, M and P skills for the same cost opens a lot of possibilities for the coach who has the patience to play with an all marauder+dark elf team. Please also note that the two issues combine.
That said, the fine line between TV management (smart) and minmaxing (evil) is probably impossible to define.
With TS there were issues over 0 rr teams that had someone with Leader. And the TS cost for Dirty Player was upped when it became a problem. There's bound to be some new combo or skill coming up all the time and we'd just end up in trying to fit everyone into the some "acceptable" mold by making all other possibilities too expensive.
Whew, my first minmax rant. I obviously have to end this with my proposed, elegant, solution. Add +10k to chaos pact marauder cost. Won't stray too far from the tabletop rules and adds more than a clawpombers worth of TV to any all marauder team. Also makes the team more fluffy as playing with all the big guys and renegades becomes more enticing.
Anyway, on the topic at hand. Voodoomike, I think you're trying to hit a moving target. The definition of minmax changes over time. |
|
|
Igvy
Joined: Apr 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 08:27 |
|
Ok look, to catch minmaxing you need to devlop a true value (called team power) for how effective each player is and hence the team overall.
Then the difference between the true power of the team, called TP for short and the TV is how minmaxed it is.
The power of a player will vary by a few things, how many skills they have, and what the skills are. Some might need to have combo bonuses like po+mb or block+dodge.
Ther other thing is the stat line, obviously st3 players are worth less than st4 players same for agility/movement and Armour.
So what you could do is break skills into three groups, skills worth 10 TP, 20 TP and 30 TP, with combo penalties, for where the whole is more than the sum of the parts.
someone would need to make this breakdown.
Then we need to know the value of the stats, and what is the base line.
Maybe st 3, av 8,ag 3,mv 6 are worth 0
Somone needs to work out what st 4 is worth, compared to st 3 or 2.
There might also need to be a multiplier effect for armour, how long they live for, but would could work that out later.
Note this is totally different from TS, TS was for LRB 4, TP would be for the CRP ruleset. The two are totally different.
Then the difference between TV and TP would be a measurement of minmaxing. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 10:20 |
|
| Quote: | | a true value (called team power) for how effective each player is and hence the team overall. |
Is this even possible? The effectiveness of skills will be determined, at least in part, by the opposition team. How useful is tackle against a team with no dodge? How useful is dauntless on a DE lineman against an all-ST3 team? |
|
|
juck101
Joined: Nov 16, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 13:13 |
|
If you meta-game the system, you wil get more favourable terms. If you change the system, and change the meta-game you will still get people exploiting to some degree, so I think its best not to spend time looking for the perfect soluton.
In some ways doing anything other than 'optimal' is bad practice in a game and im sad to say your idea is bad in my eyes |
|
|
VoodooMike
Joined: Nov 07, 2010
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 13:16 |
|
| Ullakkomorko wrote: | | Anyway, on the topic at hand. Voodoomike, I think you're trying to hit a moving target. The definition of minmax changes over time. |
If this is the case, then it doesn't really exist. Any truly extant phenomenon can be defined in such a way as to accurately predict inclusion in its subset without requiring someone to "feel" their way around each potential case.
| Igvy wrote: | | Ok look, to catch minmaxing you need to devlop a true value (called team power) for how effective each player is and hence the team overall. |
In which case you'd really just be abandoning TV altogether as a matching criteria in favour of some new, calculated score based on people's feelings as to how much each skill or stat is worth. In theory that's great, but if everyone could agree on the objective value of things then we'd have replaced TV with this already... as it stands, there hasn't been a reliable measure yet, and I'm not going to hold my breath.
There seems to be this defeatist attitude based on the idea that if you can't come up with a perfect solution, you might as well not do anything at all.. and you need to realize that Blood Bowl is a pretty monumentally imperfect and imprecise game. Unless you want to normalize everything you're always going to be left with imprecision. Really... life is that way too. There are no perfect solutions, only ideas that solve more problems than they cause.
So what I'm hoping to do is create a reasonably simple formula that can calculate a TV adjustment for teams that people can agree qualify as minmaxed in a way that people consider problematic. I don't think that'll solve every problem, or cover every team that people complain about, but I do think that if minmaxing is a real phenomenon, and a genuine issue, people should be able to give examples of teams they've faced that qualify, and get some level of consensus about the status of those teams.
If people can't then I guess its not an actual issue/phenomenon and the adjustment formula is super easy (x = x, where x = each team's TV, regardless). |
|
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 13:50 |
|
| VoodooMike wrote: | | Ullakkomorko wrote: | | Anyway, on the topic at hand. Voodoomike, I think you're trying to hit a moving target. The definition of minmax changes over time. |
If this is the case, then it doesn't really exist. Any truly extant phenomenon can be defined in such a way as to accurately predict inclusion in its subset without requiring someone to "feel" their way around each potential case.
|
I think what Ullakkomorko means is that we haven't actually had the ruleset for that long here. I believe we are approaching 12 months, and people are still finding ways to tweak and metagame the system. It's not that it doesn't exist, or won't settle, but there's new varieties coming up all the time.
For example, while I'm loath to classify it, the Lizardman build that consists of 6 saurii, no Krox, no skills on skinks, 1 reroll is pretty damn close to minmax.
For a while this team were running with all rookies barring the 3 legends, 1 reroll, and weighed in about 1300 TV. They've expanded a lot since then though. The issue here is that there really wasn't an issue until Tarabaralla took a low TV no apo lizzie team for a 19/1/0 streak in the Box (think he went to about 30 games before he actually lost one), and suddenly, I've seen a lot more of those builds cropping up.
Most Bloodbowl players aren't imaginative. They want an easy solution to minmax with, so they go with a tried and tested build (usually the low TV pact, or the no bull CD). The thing is, every now and again, an experienced coach decides to try something new, proves that a particular build can be very effective, and suddenly, everyone is copying it.
You have to be careful from drawing conclusions from the little data we have. If you did it now, based on what people complain about, +50 TV for each Clawbomber under 1500 TV would probably be a sufficient rule to stuff 80% of the minmaxers. You'd then see new min-maxes arise that aren't claw based.
If you are seeking to remove optimisation entirely...that's another matter. It's what I meant by you having to be very careful with this. There's a fine line between healthy team optimisation and min-max, and I'm not overly sure there's a defined point where it stops being one and starts being the other.
I was optimising my TV on the Lanterns by running 1 reroll no skilled skinks, in order to skill the saurii...that was just team management to grow my team. After 30 odd games, I had 4 saurii over 32 SPP at a similar TV to the one I started with, and I'd probably classify that build as then a minmax build. The only thing that changed was that I took the same basic rational/strategy and added skills to it. |
|
|
gpope
Joined: Jun 04, 2010
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 16:05 |
|
With the exception of amazons, most min/maxed teams boil down to the same thing: a couple of 4+ skill star players and a lot of rookies. So I'm going to reiterate the same suggestion I always do: have the 4th, 5th, and 6th skill on a single player count as 20k extra effective TV each. Practically any legend player is going to be hard for new teams to cope with, and pushing them into a heavier weight class would do a lot to stop the worst abuses of min/maxing.
This might lead to an increase in the number of lino-heavy zon teams, but those at least can be countered by 2 of the 24 team rosters out of the box. There's no low TV counter for clawpomb or crazy superstar elves. |
|
|
bigGuy
Joined: Sep 21, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 16:06 |
|
Match team based on games played.
Maybe separate "baskets" for:
1-2 games
3-5 games
5-10 games
10-20 games
20+ games
Inducements are GOOD now, they realy useful and gives decent chance to "underdog".
Matchmaking based on TV/TS made sense in LRB4, because handicaps were to random. Now handicaps/inducements system is fixed, there is no reason to keep TV based matchmaking.
My 2 cents |
|
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2012 - 16:42 |
|
Perhaps if you added a factor into the matching system that if TV/CR is close among several teams, then teams are matched more by category. Hence if there are 3 similar TV teams in the box, then the match would be either two bashers play one another, or two ballers play one another. Sure, there would be more elfball. So what, there is not that much of it in the box. The benefit would be that bashers would face one another more often and would cull their own ranks. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
