koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
 Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 12:43 |
 
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | The commissioner wanted to, regarding another issue. However I think how vocal those that wanted to stay to the official ruleset were, surprised him.
Therefore he has kept to the official rules. In his position I would have done the same thing. |
IMO if he thought it was that big a deal he would have done it.
If you mean CPOMB nerfs then I think he should have done it. If only for a trial or only on certain draws. But either way, the Box isn't dying.
Min/maxing is harder IMO. I think you really would need a TS and apply inducements based on TS and not TV. I don't see any point in matching on TS but awarding inducements by TV.
I don't know if the min/max problem is really big enough to warrant getting into all that.
Min/max is not something I worry about at all in [L]eague.
You seem to speak sometimes as though blood bowl is in danger of dying. But really, outside of Box mostly and Ranked to a lesser extent these are not big problems. And where they are problems they are easily tweaked.
If the new Cyanide game ever actually launches and isn't a complete heap of elephant dung then maybe the Commish might need to think again. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 12:46 |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 13:02 |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 13:23 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
You seem to speak sometimes as though blood bowl is in danger of dying. But really, outside of Box mostly and Ranked to a lesser extent these are not big problems. And where they are problems they are easily tweaked.
|
+1
..refreshing playing base is really more about advertisement and BB just doesn't have any.
The people who have stuck out with this so much longer than it was hyped just shows the incredibly high quality of the product. |
|
|
pubstar
Joined: Jun 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 15:31 |
|
I have a question for those who are practiced at TV management:
How overstated is the OP's skeleton's value versus actual cost? I would say 20k, since you're really not getting much utility out of DP, but the other skills are good.
However, I know there are some coaches who think +ST is overcosted, so the actual amount overstated might be 30k or 40k. Does that sound accurate? |
_________________
DOTP!
3DB Highlander!
Fill the Box Grid! |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 15:56 |
|
| pubstar wrote: | I have a question for those who are practiced at TV management:
How overstated is the OP's skeleton's value versus actual cost? I would say 20k, since you're really not getting much utility out of DP, but the other skills are good.
|
The problem is that the system itself could never ever properly account for that sort of player type.
You'd need like a really complex algorythm to value those properly.
The main issue is the av7 but also his low agility. It means he is very easy to remove from the pitch or at least will spend significant time on the ground even when he isn't removed.
That means all skills at any given time will benefit him less than they would benefit a player with a better stat line.
The synergy of low av with guard and +st is especially poor and dirty player in that combination amounts more to a fluff skill like always hungry. Using him to foul would be like shooting yourself in the foot 90% of the time.
I'd estimate his true value at around 100 TV, mainly because guard is such a powerful asset skill, combos well with block and +st and expect him to be standing an average of 6 or 7 turns per game.
I should add tho that when I estimate 100TV it's more a comparison to average skilling/inducements.
If you think top quality skills the value would be probably rather around 70TV. Ie: Against a CPOMB team you'd fall already quite a bit behind, against an average team the player would not be terrible but still come up short by about the margin you describe. |
Last edited by Wreckage on %b %31, %2015 - %16:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
pubstar
Joined: Jun 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 16:12 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | pubstar wrote: | I have a question for those who are practiced at TV management:
How overstated is the OP's skeleton's value versus actual cost? I would say 20k, since you're really not getting much utility out of DP, but the other skills are good.
|
The problem is that the system itself could never ever properly account for that sort of player type.
You'd need like a really complex algorythm to value those properly.
The main issue is the av7 but also his low agility. It means he is very easy to remove from the pitch or at least will spend significant time on the ground even when he isn't removed.
That means all skills at any given time will benefit him less than they would benefit a player with a better stat line.
The synergy of low av with guard and +st is especially poor and dirty player in that combination amounts more to a fluff skill like always hungry. Using him to foul would be like shooting yourself in the foot 90% of the time.
I'd estimate his true value at around 100 TV, mainly because guard is such a powerful asset skill, combos well with block and +st and expect him to be standing an average of 6 or 7 turns per game. |
Thanks for the response, Wreckage. I think 100k sounds fair. It's lower than I would value him, but I'm happy to defer judgement here. Let's say his value is overstated by 40k.
My line of thinking, then, is this: The anti-min/max crowd seems to think firing this player would be really wrong, on some kind of ethical level, or that it would harm the game. My question, then, is: is it OK to fire a -MA human lineman with no skills? These threads always seem to decry firing a healthy player just because that player is inefficient, but permanent injuries are a get out of jail free card.
I, personally, would pay 10k for a 5338 player, and I think many others would, too. So it stands to reason that a -MA human lineman's value is overstated by some amount less than 40k. He's actually more efficient than the skelly in question, but firing him is perfectly acceptable.
The longer I read this thread, the less I understand the logic. Managing TV is bad, unless your TV management falls within arbitrary guidelines? |
_________________
DOTP!
3DB Highlander!
Fill the Box Grid! |
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 16:15 |
|
| pubstar wrote: | I have a question for those who are practiced at TV management:
How overstated is the OP's skeleton's value versus actual cost? I would say 20k, since you're really not getting much utility out of DP, but the other skills are good.
However, I know there are some coaches who think +ST is overcosted, so the actual amount overstated might be 30k or 40k. Does that sound accurate? |
A Black Orc with Guard is 100K. Which is the better player? +MA, DP, TS and Regen or 2AV? It's close but I'd probably rather have the Black Orc, so about 100K. |
|
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 16:24 |
|
But in a Khemri team the overprice is perhaps more like 30K because 10K of the overprice is tied up in the rookie skeleton that would replace him! |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 16:26 |
|
| Endzone wrote: |
A Black Orc with Guard is 100K. Which is the better player? +MA, DP, TS and Regen or 2AV? It's close but I'd probably rather have the Black Orc, so about 100K. |
A BOB with Guard and Block is already 120.. If I'd strictly compare them for the four extra skills vs two +av I might calculate with 120 too.
Just when I envision the player on pitch with his low armor and being a primary block target it's just hard for to justify any high price. |
|
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 16:26 |
|
A -ma human lineman 5338 would be worth 40K, 10K less than the healthy version and the same price as a Rotter with the same stats. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 16:30 |
|
| pubstar wrote: | | Wreckage wrote: | | pubstar wrote: | I have a question for those who are practiced at TV management:
How overstated is the OP's skeleton's value versus actual cost? I would say 20k, since you're really not getting much utility out of DP, but the other skills are good.
|
The problem is that the system itself could never ever properly account for that sort of player type.
You'd need like a really complex algorythm to value those properly.
The main issue is the av7 but also his low agility. It means he is very easy to remove from the pitch or at least will spend significant time on the ground even when he isn't removed.
That means all skills at any given time will benefit him less than they would benefit a player with a better stat line.
The synergy of low av with guard and +st is especially poor and dirty player in that combination amounts more to a fluff skill like always hungry. Using him to foul would be like shooting yourself in the foot 90% of the time.
I'd estimate his true value at around 100 TV, mainly because guard is such a powerful asset skill, combos well with block and +st and expect him to be standing an average of 6 or 7 turns per game. |
Thanks for the response, Wreckage. I think 100k sounds fair. It's lower than I would value him, but I'm happy to defer judgement here. Let's say his value is overstated by 40k.
My line of thinking, then, is this: The anti-min/max crowd seems to think firing this player would be really wrong, on some kind of ethical level, or that it would harm the game. My question, then, is: is it OK to fire a -MA human lineman with no skills? These threads always seem to decry firing a healthy player just because that player is inefficient, but permanent injuries are a get out of jail free card.
I, personally, would pay 10k for a 5338 player, and I think many others would, too. So it stands to reason that a -MA human lineman's value is overstated by some amount less than 40k. He's actually more efficient than the skelly in question, but firing him is perfectly acceptable.
The longer I read this thread, the less I understand the logic. Managing TV is bad, unless your TV management falls within arbitrary guidelines? |
The 'anti-minmax' crowd doesn't think firing him is bad, they think it's a sign that points to the stupidity of the rule set in even making that a consideration. Also, permanent injuries? You do realize that when you replace a permanent injury you actually get a better player back right? When you fire a healthy player with 3 skills you get a 'worse' player back.
My opinion though is that he's not over costed for what he will bring to your team. Seriously, are you that worried about 100k tv that you'd rather replace him with a skilless skele?
The alternative opinion is that you simply built him really badly. Why take +ST on your DP? Why follow up and take guard? To that end then, yes, you should have fired him as soon as he hit 16spp no matter what the skill roll was because you are saying that you don't want any skele with more than DP (other than one who might roll a double on their 1st skill?). There are other rosters where the linemen should stop at 6spp, or even zero (hi Norse!) for purely TV management reasons. And in this rule set we've all simply accepted that and worked it into our strategies as we see fit.
(yes I realize this isn't your player actually) |
|
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 16:31 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | Endzone wrote: |
A Black Orc with Guard is 100K. Which is the better player? +MA, DP, TS and Regen or 2AV? It's close but I'd probably rather have the Black Orc, so about 100K. |
A BOB with Guard and Block is already 120.. If I'd strictly compare them for the four extra skills vs two +av I might calculate with 120 too.
Just when I envision the player on pitch with his low armor and being a primary block target it's just hard for to justify any high price. |
Neither the Skeleton or the Black Orc in the example have block, if they both did I would be saying 120K each. I agree I prefer the Black Orc, but not by enough to drop the Skeleton to 90K. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 16:45 |
|
| Endzone wrote: |
Neither the Skeleton or the Black Orc in the example have block, if they both did I would be saying 120K each. I agree I prefer the Black Orc, but not by enough to drop the Skeleton to 90K. |
Not sure where I got the Block from now. His true cost i calculated at 140. Yet I do feel still compelled to reevalute him now at a cost of 80 or 90 or even lower..
Maybe it's just me but I think this is a really horrible player. Like someone I'd want to get rid of in league. I mean like.. Maybe I'm too attached to get straight out rid of him but man I'd put him in the tough spots to get him killed.
Although I'm not big on retiring healthy ones, DP players are kind of the exception.
Players with stacked skills did already suck in LRB4. Obviously TR didn't account for stat ups at all so there was some metagame in trying to obtain many.
The Fumbbl internal TS did account for it tho, so it wouldn't have been a good player in box back then. The cost for strenth in the TS formular was lower but skill stacking cost still quite a bit.
Oh and of course DP was prized at 5TS, ie the same way strength is prized now... |
|
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 31, 2015 - 16:53 |
|
If scheduling is not decided on TV then the logical team build strategy is max max, since inducements are rarely worth the TV difference. (A consideration is whether a resource is worth the inducement equivalent). If scheduling is decided on TV then min max becomes a logical strategy (a consideration is whether the resource is worth what your opponent will have spent the equivalent TV on). Some coaches enjoy the TV matching environment by adjusting their team build style accordingly. Others would prefer for this side effect of the TV matching system not to occur and encourage others not to 'abuse the system'. And others still are somewhere in between.
An interesting thought experiment would be if we had all grown up in TV matching environments and had never played anything else. Then someone invented an 'Open' format where TV was not considered in scheduling. All the familiar min maxed teams we had grown up on (where we enjoyed the fluff of developing our stars to run circles around the hapless linemen) were suddenly ineffective against these new abominable max max teams. "Hey - not fair, he has 14 players, all his positionals, an apothecary and 4 rerolls! He's gaming the new system!" |
|
|
|
|
| |
Record the length of...
Search
