46 coaches online • Server time: 14:38
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post CR system math detai...goto Post Rankings updategoto Post Fall Back Into the E...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
mister__joshua



Joined: Jun 20, 2007

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 12:39
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

One thing that was discussed with the release of the new rules was the new Seasons mechanic of BB2016. It was suggested by Purplegoo (not seriously, at first) that this could be implemented on Fumbbl if desired. Since then I've been thinking about the relative merits of this and I actually think it could be a great idea if implemented correctly.

Now, obviously this isn't a suggestion that has any weight behind it, but I'd like to see how a discussion goes on the topic. To avoid getting off track I'd like to try something new to Fumbbl, and internet forums in general, and have a reasoned discussion about it. So I thought I'd put it forwards as a topic for debate. I'll then argue why I think it could be good, and other people can join in on either side to make their points. I can/will delete posts that don't contribute to the discussion and back up their arguments with reasoning.


Debate Topic: BB2016's new Season mechanic would be good for perpetual online leagues

Supporting information: Death Zone season 1 contains a Season mechanic. After each season (defined period of games) each team gets 10k per match played, 5k per TD and Cas, and a fresh 1m gold added to their treasury. From this they must re-purchase their team (not including Fan Factor). Players who have played 2 or more seasons sometimes cost an extra 10k per season played to convince them to stay.


MJ: True.
I think Seasons could be good for Fumbbl, and I think it solves a lot of problems faced by our main divisions. The number of games the season length is set to would determine the average TV of teams in the division. A season can't end during a scheduled tournament, but the season would then end as soon as the team finished their last tournament game.

A problem with the Ranked tournament scene is coaches building perfect monster teams. With a game limit placed on this it changes the meta of teambuilding. The new meta would be 'how good can I pimp this team in 15 games' instead of an infinite loop of cherrypicking games to squeeze out a few SPPs. It'd make tournaments more competitive by making them accessible to players who can't play 25 builder games a week.

The main problem with B is large TV gaps. This would solve that issue. All teams would start to gravitate towards a certain TV. Matches on average would be fairer and more competitive. There would also be more of them, as people would get less bad draws and the matching score would be a lot closer.

_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude

Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 12:55 Reply with quote Back to top

Simple questions:

What makes you think R & B are anything more than a series of exhibition games? They don't fit within a "normal" league format at all really. And serve a variety of purposes to their users, some of whom participate regularly in the tournament circuit which is absolutely not restricted to Majors.

How do you fit minors (Brawls/Smacks/Rookie Rumbles/Actual TW-limited Minors) into your proposition?


I'd also ask - is the problem with "B" large tv gaps? Or is it the teams that have consistently been at the top end of that TV gap due to a meta that may actually be about to change?

_________________
Image
Matthueycamo



Joined: May 16, 2014

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 12:56 Reply with quote Back to top

Now I have seen the actual calculation looks to me like a handicap system that handicaps the worst players. I don't know how you think matches would be fairer when teams get more TV for wins by virtue of scoring more TDs and CAS. That is designed to give better coaches more TV to rebuy with.

Anybody can develop the perfect roster if they put in enough time, only the best will get close under this.

_________________
Image

DLE College 7s
Matthueycamo



Joined: May 16, 2014

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 13:01 Reply with quote Back to top

Also I think the incentive to cherry pick is much greater than before due to the limited time frame for building. Many more coaches will only want to face squishy teams that have poor win rates to max out the chance at TDs and CAS to build quick and give themselves more TV when they have to rebuy.

_________________
Image

DLE College 7s
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 13:32 Reply with quote Back to top

As long as seasons are optional for [L]eague. Wink

You will probably need seasons though as so many teams (not just CPOMBers) have been wussified.

Make each season n games for a team. A season cannot end while the team is still in a tournament.

People will of course pimp their team right up to the season limit pre tournament, but it could limit the number of builder games.

_________________
Image
Secret League - SLUMBBL Cup - The Big One - 26th October!
Uedder



Joined: Aug 03, 2010

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 13:35 Reply with quote Back to top

With all the extra money for each game and cas/tds this does look a bit grindy...

I'm not opposed to the idea, but would like to know better about it.

Do you pay the initial fee for players or do their skills add to the TV?

I see Box and Ranked as a sandbox, while tournaments are the actually competitive games, so I wouldn't qualify them as proper Leagues.

I don't get much of the Major building problem you describe, as it really takes about 20 games to build an elf team to major shape. A bit more with other teams and 0 with goblins.

It's not that much in a year.
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 13:52 Reply with quote Back to top

It's a very interesting suggestion, but I don't think I really like the idea for [R] and [B]. Imo, building (and facing, and beating) the monster teams is something that adds a lot of character and fluff to both divisions, especially the major tourneys. If the majors were all composed of teams limited to 1700TV, I think it would take away some of the fun. Would be less chance of us seeing Morg and co Wink

Also, Matthueycamo's points are good ones. I think there could be better ways to solve the issues with [R] and [B] that you highlighted.

(also - where's my poll and pie? Wink )

_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2

"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" Razz
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 14:02 Reply with quote Back to top

Thinking about it some more, another way to do it, rather than saying 'each season is x number of games', could be to use the official tourneys to denote when the season ends for a team. Let's say playing a major adds 2 to your 'season tally' and playing a minor adds 1. When a team's season tally reaches 2, their season ends and their last x games (15, 20, whatever) played since their last season ended are counted as that season's games.

My thinking is that it would help combat the 'sleeper' teams that only come out for the majors, although you'd probably still have the issues previously identified with picking and monster teams only being affordable for the better players.

_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2

"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" Razz


Last edited by JellyBelly on Nov 27, 2016 - 14:09; edited 1 time in total
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 14:09 Reply with quote Back to top

Marking seasons ending by participation in majors simply doesn't work for the teams/coaches that never ever play in tourneys, assuming you're attempting a "level playing field" for the whole division.

_________________
Image


Last edited by ArrestedDevelopment on Nov 27, 2016 - 14:09; edited 1 time in total
tussock



Joined: May 29, 2011

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 14:09 Reply with quote Back to top

Excusing the forbidden answer, but the main problem with [B] is unavoidable CPOMB spam at high TV.

People call it "TV gaps", but what they mean is they want to play at a low-to-mid-TV to avoid the high-TV CPOMB spam that appears in box and can't do that for sure with older teams. They can't say that, because you're not allowed to say that here, but there it is.

The new edition does not have Piling On, or does but they use team RRs, so spamming it is basically useless. The inducement system also works better by the looks and there's other things going on to help against high-TV gaps, like better cards, and you basically have to spend money on adding inducements anyway, which works better.

--

As for team building, people who spend a bunch of time building perfect monster teams can just run through the season cycle over and over again to still build the perfect monster team, now with free rookies. The perfect team will be look far more like a handful of stat freaks and a bunch of rookies with no RRs, by having a randomised TV cap, but obviously you can still just keep hammering at it until you luck into a high treasury and good TD/Cas string, and then add 15 more games to it to skill the new rookies with placed MVPs and replace your RRs before parking for a tournament.

--

https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=810985

That's my 2150 TV Goblin team (temporarily not bankrupt!), in League (SWL). 49 games and a year and a half in the making. They're just getting started, I have hopes for 2300. I get people are kinda sick of giant Nurgs, but come on, if you cap everyone at 1750 + 15 games or whatever, elves will obviously rule everything all the time and I can't do fun things like that any more, at all. Which makes me sad.

I don't want to cut half those guys to fit some random TV cap. Nor my 2200 box Vamps, who are still missing a few Pro and have a long way to go, or the 2030 Ogres that are barely skilled at all, or the 1970 Gobs that are already mostly rookies. What is it about slashing those teams to bits (or at least cutting all the RRs) is going to make anyone's [B] experience better?

https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=810529
https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=658996
https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=808174

Sure, if you cut up my [R] Dorfs, people would be happy. But I'm not sure how anyone would even play Dorfs under a TV cap that's smaller if you score less in an environment where no one plays you if you have damage skills for cas???

--

But yay for elfball. Stalling is for people who want a smaller team in a few game's time. Just run it in and hope they return the favour. What's strategy when you're trying to boost your TV cap?

_________________
ImageImage
JellyBelly



Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 14:22 Reply with quote Back to top

ArrestedDevelopment wrote:
Marking seasons ending by participation in majors simply doesn't work for the teams/coaches that never ever play in tourneys, assuming you're attempting a "level playing field" for the whole division.


My thinking was that it would give the coaches that don't play in tourneys an 'opt out' on the season system. Maybe it doesn't matter so much if they have monster teams, if they're not using them to win tourneys? Otherwise, you perhaps could combine both ideas - games played and tourneys entered?

(again though, I'm not really in favor of this season thing - just throwing out ideas)


tussock wrote:
Excusing the forbidden answer, but the main problem with [B] is unavoidable CPOMB spam at high TV.


Yes, once PO is nerfed, this should go away. High-TV dominance of CPOMB teams in the Box should end and there won't be as much of an incentive to mono-activate. Hopefully, this might also attract more coaches to come and play in Box, who maybe were avoiding it before because of the CPOMB issues. Smile

_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2

"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" Razz
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 15:03 Reply with quote Back to top

To expand on this:
ArrestedDevelopment wrote:

What makes you think R & B are anything more than a series of exhibition games? They don't fit within a "normal" league format at all really.



My own personal experience of ranked/box is pretty much that my team plays pick-up games. The team is not tied into any schedule, except a singular game I volunteer it for at a time of my choosing. There's no over-arching hierarchy to the division in terms of ranking for teams, there's no fixed schedule that I must adhere to, there's nothing pitting me into games against certain opponents, nor any clear breakpoints.

The games the team has played beforehand have absolutely no bearing on the game it is taking part in (aside from in terms of cas suffered and spp accrued) and the game it's taking part in similarly has little bearing on future games, unless the game it takes part in leads to the team's demise.

In short, it is completely open play.

I don't consider either division to be properly categorized as leagues. I don't expect them to be subjected to the rules for leagues, and given the past objections (both from userbase and admin) to placing house rules/non-core league optional rules in place on the divisions I'd consider any movement to do so now quite a departure from previous stances.

_________________
Image
akaRenton



Joined: Apr 15, 2008

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 16:21 Reply with quote Back to top

There's a few problems here. We do know when or if these changes will be implememnted on FUMBBL, and if they will be able to be fully implemented. We're also making a lot of assumptions about what the impact of the changes will be. Some people are probably on the money with their ideas of how it will effect R and B, but can anyone categorically state what the impacts will be? No. For now it makes little sense to propose further changes until we know what changes are already coming and what effect that will have.

For me the main attraction of ranked is building novelty teams and not having to play against certain coaches. The season idea would kill off a lot of novelty teams. Not all of us can afford the time to play enough to keep rosters from turning into wipe the slate clean rookie line ups every few games. I can think of several novelty teams that are an important part of FUMBBL for a lot of people that would wither and die.

It basically feels like you want to limit high end, developed teams only to people who can play all the time.

_________________
Dirty Cranberries - All zombie funtimes

Fumbbl Image Library - Free images to make logos, player bio pics etc
Purplegoo



Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 17:01 Reply with quote Back to top

mister__joshua wrote:
One thing that was discussed with the release of the new rules was the new Seasons mechanic of BB2016. It was suggested by Purplegoo (not seriously, at first) that this could be implemented on Fumbbl if desired.


It's true that I was half kidding. Half kidding, and half musing about the new rules and how they all hang together (seasonal leagues now being a relatively heavy theme).

If FUMBBL was brand new today and Cyanide / other online BB did not exist, I wonder what the new site would look like, how divisions would work. We have built up years and years of history and tradition; that tradition being that our main divisions (R & B) are essentially large holding pens within which we can do pretty much as we please. We can attempt to accomplish any goal we set ourselves via a number of exhibition games. If there is any suggested direction from the site or the community, that direction is to build a team to a high TV and to put it into a knock out tournament to win a virtual cup. We are also encouraged (by the community) to build legendary players and fluff things up.

I guess that tradition is what it is for perfectly sensible reasons. Older versions of the rules mention long term, perpetual leagues. Christer has said he likes high TV knock-outs (and his opinion is all that matters). KOs are damned easy to administer (relative to other tournaments), and putting cups out there to 'aim for' gives the divisions some sort of nominal point above and beyond just playing Blood Bowl. Goals and aims are good things, and these cups being take it or leave it is pretty nice.

If none of that ever existed and FUMBBL arrived today, would we set up main divisions like that? Or would we look at the rules and implement something resembling a seasonal cycle? Something totally different? I'm just a bloke with an opinion like any of you, but I think if these divisions are supposed to be competitive, steering the direction to maximum TV and then playing for KO cups isn't the form of the game that replies most upon skill. It also encourages undesirable behaviours in the community; the best way of winning these things is not being the best FUMBBL citizen. We don't know how the new rules will all subtly affect things (and it will be subtle - the game is > 98 % the same as CRP), but D3 MVP might make teams more competitive and robust at lower TV, making progression teams look more like resurrection tournament teams (my MVP goes on any of these three Saurus, please, much less forever cycling Skinks until my team begins to look half decent). I think this is good for competitive BB, although I regret the fluffiness of 4 skill Zombies eating all of the MVPs going out of the window. The removal of the predominant attrition skill in the game might well allow teams to go on for longer between rebuilds, attaining bigger and bigger TVs. Without some mechanism external to the game keeping them in check, I'm not sure we'll end up in a super desirable place. I'd quite like to be encouraged to keep playing in that lower TV area where skills are more favourably distributed than now; that seems quite nice. The challenge of deciding what to fire / re-hire would be interesting too. Coaches of long lived teams will tell you that it's the brand of the team that matters, players come and go. I think it all might work rather nicely, or at least, be no better or worse than now.

FUMBBL isn't a new site today. Change is always really hard; people are set in their ways. And people like what we have, which shouldn't be ignored. Again - I'm just one bloke with one opinion, what I think would be best is not what the next bloke thinks, probably least of all the bloke that actually matters. Also, whatever system you implement, online coaches will find a way to break it (that first six months of CRP B was just about the happiest time I had on site, before coaches worked out the best way to win for the least effort there was some lovely BB played). I do think that, with a magic wand, I might take this opportunity to rejig R or B and bend it towards the seasonal idea (probably number of games rather than time periods), I think it has a number of advantages. A lot of coaches reading this will be happy I don't possess a wand. Wink

Afterall, in the open format we have now, I can continue to play the BB I like / rate the most. That is the great advantage of it; people can do as they like. I guess that's as good a reason as any to not change anything.
Jim_Fear



Joined: May 02, 2014

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2016 - 17:17 Reply with quote Back to top

If the site (Christer) decides to implement the new season rules into Fumbbl, I like the idea of 20-25 match "seasons" within the main divisions after which teams would go through the new post-season phase. I support the notion that a "season" could not end during a scheduled tournament of any kind.

If for nothing else, this would add some variety to the game.

_________________
Image
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 1.2 © 2003 PNphpBB Group
Credits