Kam
Joined: Nov 06, 2012
|
 Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 02:08 |
 
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | Stunties should have their TV skill costs halved. |
Dunno about that but indeed 30TV for any useful skill (aka doubles) is overpriced, so is 30TV for +MA on a rookie. But in the meantime, I've had a couple of flings costing more than 200 TV (MA7 AG5 Fling, ST4 AG4 Blackler, etc), and they were (or are!) worth every single TV point...
Everything is about skill / stats combinaison, but any adjustment should be made on a race basis, which would make them almost impossible to calculate in a TT environment. |
_________________
GLN 17 is out!
 |
|
Zlefin
Joined: Apr 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 02:29 |
|
wouldn't it work better to use the database info on the many many teams and use factor analysis to find the estimated values? |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 02:40 |
|
oh jesus
thread lock |
_________________
 |
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 04:35 |
|
Zlefin, no, not really. You can't differentiate coach skill or team trends from player skill selection.
Some top coaches settle into a very specific order of skill increases for various positions, which makes those skills look artificially good, rather than just that they suit the play and typical opponents of certain prolific winning coaches.
Similarly, some prolific coaches who lose a lot are going to favour certain skills too, which will make them look artificially worse. In blackbox, you would end up, hilariously, finding that CPOMB is not a combination that wins games at all, because on average there's as many lose-heaps coaches spam it as there is win-heaps coaches.
You would also find that skills taken by Ogres and Goblins and Halflings are all terrible skills, when really it's just that they don't get general access to compliment them properly, so the teams get worse relative to the competition at higher TV.
And similarly, choosing dodge a lot is great, because the teams that can do that are elves and they get better at high TV (despite Amazons and stunties, who start with it, getting worse, they're not played as much and so won't show up in the stats).
--
So figuring out what's really working from the database would require you understand what's really working in the first place. |
_________________
  |
|
keggiemckill
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 04:45 |
|
Why complain on Fumbbl, when you can direct your anger towards GW/ Blood Bowl? You guys areally Bananas. |
_________________
The Drunker I get, the more I spill
"Keggie is the guy with the bleach blond hair that gives answers nobody else would think of."
Jeffro |
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 06:07 |
|
 |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley |
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 06:31 |
|
Cheerleaders are overpriced. |
|
|
kummo
Joined: Mar 29, 2016
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 06:48 |
|
| PainState wrote: |
Lets say CPOMB should cost when 'stacked' 200TV
Blodge should cost 150TV when stacked
MB/PO should cost 120TV when stacked
On and on we go with the most effective "stacks" we can come up with, trust me, the list is long.
|
That would lead just to a different kind of minmaxing. Also elfs might take wrestle+dodge to avoid blodge-stack.. and what skills would you give to Delf blitzers on normal rolls if it's A WIZARD of cost in TV.
Think about it.. Rookie Delfs vs Delfs that have played 1 game where blitzer got skill. Is the TV difference really worth of a Wiz?
I'm kinda for stacking TV on some skills.. but those psoposed numbers might be too much.
| Traul wrote: |
Player cost = Base cost + skill cost + XP cost
XP cost:
-Rookie: 0
-Experienced: 10000
-Veteran: 30000
-Emerging Star: 60000
-Star: 100000
-Super Star: 150000
-Legend: 210000 |
I don't like this idea. On some teams it just doesn't work. There are teams where you wan't to skill everyone equally (like Chaos and most elf teams).. but then there are teams where you have certain positionals you want to bloat (Skaven, Undead, Necro) and avoid dividing skills with linos. This kind of pricing would penaltize a natural/most common way to build effective teams for certain races.
I don't like this idea  |
|
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 07:28 |
|
| PainState wrote: |
This is all fools gold.
|
The Texan speaks truth.
People like to talk about TV pricing because it seems like the clever intellectual way to manage the supply of overpowered skills and combos. Trouble is, price in isolation doesn't even do the trick in the real world. What works IRL is a marketplace with the free interaction of supply and demand, with elasticity governing the interaction on either side, and the market finding the equilibrium price point. Any economist will tell you that artificial price management creates rents -- inefficiencies, distortions -- and other ill effects. It happens for the same basic reason that we can't do it in Blood Bowl: it's too complicated to manage. Until you come up with a way for skill prices to arrive at equilibrium via a supply/demand model in a free market skill economy, don't talk to me about managing skill prices directly.
Furthermore, incremental pricing by level is also wrong-headed. Sure, almost every skill has synergy with other skills, but that effect is already built in to the price, because we all choose skills to suit the position and/or stat line. If you're not giving your Blitzer Dirty Player or your Gutter Runner Mighty Blow then you are aware of how skills synergize (or don't). The game already expects us to take advantage of such things.
Now, there are obvious exceptions to the above, where skill combos, or even certain skills alone, are of higher value in-game than the other 90% of potential picks. We all know which ones. Once you have no more of these skills to pick, your player becomes bloated and you contemplate firing him. If we are honest, it is these skills which drive the entire discussion. So MAYBE, the problem is not so much the pricing of skills as the potency of these few skills themselves. Fix the skills, and everyone stops talking about pricing and overpowered combos.
There is another way of approaching this argument. One might say that TV is not the true price of a skill at all. The true price of a skill is the the slot it is chosen for. And all slots are the same size -- ie you get one pick per level. (Arguably, since the more skills you have the longer you have to wait to get another one, Time is another form of cost. But Time is only relevant in a League setting.) So for TV-matched games, the slot is the price, therefore each slot should be the same TV. As long as player levels are immutable (which they must be, because complexity), each skill's potency should be equalized as much as possible in order to match the slots' equal prices.
tl;dr: Differential skill pricing is too complicated; skill flattening is the answer. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 07:44 |
|
| fidius wrote: | | Any economist will tell you that artificial price management creates rents -- inefficiencies, distortions -- and other ill effects. |
As I Dorf player, I could not agree more.
20K Dodge to everyone! |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 09:30 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | Mr_Foulscumm wrote: |
We could get into the whole play ground arguments of "if you do that, I do this" back and forth. Which will be fun for a reply or two (maybe).
Or we can just accept the fact that the nature of Box will serve us a shit sandwich from time to time. It's the price we pay for the convenience of the scheduler. And then get on with the game. |
Or we could adopt a more accurate TV calculation for the Box, like TS during LRB4. |
Ah the golden age.
And how did Box do in LRB4 exactly?
edit: People also keep throwing around that TS was "more accurate". But how exactly? I mean even the killstack is not worth the same depending on what the opposition is. Claw is a big deal for teams that rely on AV, while it's actually wasted TV vs some teams. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 09:46 |
|
| Desultory wrote: | | Please don't debate with the few people that seem to be averse to change. |
What does this mean? |
Last edited by Balle2000 on %b %03, %2016 - %10:%Sep; edited 1 time in total |
|
Throweck
Joined: Feb 23, 2013
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 09:51 |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 10:05 |
|
| fidius wrote: | | tl;dr: Differential skill pricing is too complicated; skill flattening is the answer. |
I agreed with most of what you said, except this. We ca flatten skills all we want, but some skills will always be better on certain teams, unless we reduce their effects to the point of meaninglessness. So doesn't this mean we'd have to start flattening teams out as well? Even though they were designed to be better or worse? Where exactly do we stop? |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Desultory
Joined: Jun 24, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2016 - 10:42 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | Desultory wrote: | | Please don't debate with the few people that seem to be averse to change. |
What does this mean? |
I saw your previous post before you edited it... It wasn't very nice, which is probably why you edited it.
TV is clearly broken. That's not just my 'noob opinion'. Yet the only argument presented in different ways for not changing it is that alternatives won't be perfect.
There is no point debating with this thought process. |
Last edited by Desultory on %b %03, %2016 - %10:%Sep; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
