41 coaches online • Server time: 11:51
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Old Wo...goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post ramchop takes on the...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
Best 1980s cult film?
Goonies
27%
 27%  [ 15 ]
Big Trouble in Little China
30%
 30%  [ 17 ]
The Burbs
5%
 5%  [ 3 ]
Videodrome
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
An American Werewolf in London
9%
 9%  [ 5 ]
They Live
5%
 5%  [ 3 ]
Escape from New York
20%
 20%  [ 11 ]
Total Votes : 55


Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 14:23 Reply with quote Back to top

it could be fun seeing if someone can have 11 legends in a team Very Happy haha

_________________
Image
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 14:34 Reply with quote Back to top

mrt1212 wrote:

So you disregard what Im playing in Box for and superimpose what youre playing for and still slide a gripe about what it should be with CR Decay? Your selective exclusion of evidence is hilarious given your posturing as the sole arbiter of objectivity.

My reply was a bit tongue-in-cheek. The idea was showing that, while you play to build your team not caring too much about your win rate, I try to build my win rate not caring too much about my team building. Considering that Box is a supposed competitive division my approach focussed on winning is more attuned to the spirit of the division. Your attitude is more attuned to MMORPGs and RPGs where you improve your character by farming him over and over again.
It's not a matter of being arbiter of objectivity, is crystal clear to everyone with a bit of logic.
mrt1212 wrote:
Box allows games to happen that are a direct contradiction of your competitive ideal and you refuse to even acknowledge that.

That's a flaw of the Box but amongst all the divisions on FUMBBL is the one most likely to be competitive.
Of course there will be some people messing around in Box, but my point is that trying to match teams with as small as possible TV gaps is a step towards making the Box more competitive and preventing time wastes when teams with huge TV gaps are matched by the scheduler.
mrt1212 wrote:
Also try and stop yourself from Strawmans. I havent once invoked Ranked here and yet you keep circling back to it unprompted in some fallacious attempt to edify your preference.

Mmmh honestly I wasn't trying to build a strawman there, I used Ranked because it's the other supposed competitive division on FUMBBL. I could have used League but it's not competitive.
mrt1212 wrote:
Youve constructed an entirely self serving concept of fairness, purpose of venue and the way things should be and that you refuse to even entertain that youve done this is all that needs to be said on the matter. Your blind spots speak louder than your words.

Ok, so wanting to play even TV games is a self-serving concept of fairness existing only on my mind.
I wonder why the scheduler tries to arrange even TV games whenever possible, maybe my mind influenced the Box scheduler. Maybe I have super mental powers!
mrt1212 wrote:
You want Box to be the competitive division to stroke your own ego. Its transparent and childish and the only person youre fooling with your haphazard invocation of logic is yourself.

Yes I want Box to be competitive for many reasons:
1) Because it's, for definition, a competitive division (gasp!);
2) Because I think that people are more interested in fair matches, and not in TV gaps (unless they are monoactivators, minmaxers or team cyclers);
3) Because I consider playing TV gap matches a waste of time and not interesting games, even when I'm the overdog;
4) Because if the division is the most competitive on FUMBBL I can stroke my ego by playing there.
Tricktickler



Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 15:35 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
Indeed. capping is not the goal.

Remember this comes with a BIG - if there is actually a problem anyway... (specifically with teams growing and staying at 3000TV)

The solutions to this issue (if it is one ) that the rules provide are the optional Piling On rule to increase on the pitch attrition, and/or using the drafting rules which to me have no place in an open division, and punish the weakest teams more than anything else.

But again. This is only if people actually think there is something wrong with huge tv teams.

Yeah, if it is a problem then the best way of fixing it, that the rules provide, is probably to allow the new optional version of Piling On.

Would you be able to find a solution for it if you could rewrite the rules? It's quite hard to find a good solution. Aging was a decent attempt imo but was disliked. Clawpomb was another attempt but failed miserably.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 16:23 Reply with quote Back to top

LRB4 Ageing was too random, players could age even at first skill up and that was frustrating indeed.
A better Ageing could start to check either from 51, 76, or 176 SPPs.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of Seasons, but apparently it's the current official "soft-Ageing" written in the rules, this is why I talked about Seasons.
I'd rather an Ageing based on SPPs, games played or skills owned by the player.
Not a fan of Piling On 2016 either, because games would again more based on winning the coin toss and removing players by using PO, more on dice, less on positioning.
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 17:32 Reply with quote Back to top

Tricktickler wrote:

Would you be able to find a solution for it if you could rewrite the rules? It's quite hard to find a good solution. Aging was a decent attempt imo but was disliked. Clawpomb was another attempt but failed miserably.


CRP had the correct idea, keeping teams in a specific TV range as a result of attrition. The problem was that CPOMB added far too much luck to games. Having a roll with a 55% ish chance of removing an opposing player made games too dicey and not fun.

However the levels of attrition them selves seemed about right, it just needed spreading out, rather than coming from one very specific place. A little buff back to fouling, a little buff back to crowd surfing and nerf to the kill stack. That way you have a more fair and even form of attrition. SE or EM are both fine for what they do, though I found teams could still accumulate huge sums of money under SE, so EM albeit tweaked seems to be more successful.

_________________
Image
Civ



Joined: Jun 22, 2017

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 17:39 Reply with quote Back to top

ArthurWynne wrote:

I think the cap should be raised to 150. If necessary I would rather the roll be more punitive to compensate.


100% agree
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 17:45 Reply with quote Back to top

Nah. It was all wrong.

Letting commishes & coaches decide the bands makes for better, more enjoyable games over the longer term.

Being regularly down in TV starts to wear on people after a while.

It is all a matter of taste of course. Wink

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 19:17 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:

Being regularly down in TV starts to wear on people after a while.


But that didn't happen really. TVs would grow and shrink and grow and shrink over time. which for me is preferable to building a team up and then have its players leave when they get good. Which is what seasons/redrafting does, and it hurts the weakest teams most.

Whether attrition based TV management is preferable to an ever increasing TV I'm not sure really. Teams certainly seem to be hitting very high TVs very easily these days.

But again I'm not sure if that's actually an issues really. Though it does seem a little cheap to me and I know the people designing the rules have been trying to keep teams below 2300 ish in one way or another over the last few editions, which doesn't seem to be working here with what we currently have.

_________________
Image
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 20:18 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
koadah wrote:

Being regularly down in TV starts to wear on people after a while.


But that didn't happen really. TVs would grow and shrink and grow and shrink over time. which for me is preferable to building a team up and then have its players leave when they get good. Which is what seasons/redrafting does, and it hurts the weakest teams most.

Whether attrition based TV management is preferable to an ever increasing TV I'm not sure really. Teams certainly seem to be hitting very high TVs very easily these days.

But again I'm not sure if that's actually an issues really. Though it does seem a little cheap to me and I know the people designing the rules have been trying to keep teams below 2300 ish in one way or another over the last few editions, which doesn't seem to be working here with what we currently have.


I can see some benefit it capping TVs when you have a small pool of coaches with 2-3 new participants and 2-3 exiting participants every season in a league.

The NWFL has consistently had an issue between new teams and old teams where the old teams are some 500-1000 TV larger than new teams in open competition.

NBFL doesn't suffer from this as much because we have a draft with which allows some studs and decent 31 sppish to be added to the team right off the bat and also every player can be built up to 6 spp before the season starts at the very least. New teams will be lower in TV than old teams but the gap is like 500 TV between 2600 and 2100 rather than 2000 and 1500.


GW has never designed one thing in BB around our reality here so it's not surprising that when some structure is removed we get to be the explorers of the unknown and interesting.
fidius



Joined: Jun 17, 2011

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 21:42 Reply with quote Back to top

The EM/Seasons fix is creative but very restricting, bordering on arrogant in terms of dictating (or at least presuming) how real-world leagues function. It seems poorly thought-through to me -- which I find discouraging. I'd rather believe the people in charge of the rules knew the game better than I do, and have its best interests in mind.

But that aside, if one could design the ageing and money sub-systems from the ground up, what would they look like?
1) Bear at least passing resemblance to reality and/or fluff
2) Deal with racial differences elegantly (eg. higher-turnover teams get more cash)
3) Permit saving for player acquisition but not huge banks of cash
4) Keep player attrition on-field and not focused on one easy skill combo that is limited to only certain races
5) Give many options for spending cash for modest benefits that are not game-breaking
6) Link player ageing to games played
7) Contribute to balance and competitiveness at all TV levels
8) Allow leagues flexibility to run how they wish to (eg. perpetual, fixed, high-TV, low-TV, etc.)
9) Cultivate role-playing, stories, and personal attachment to players and team concepts
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 21:57 Reply with quote Back to top

Very good write up fidius. I think the only thing missing from your list is simplicity as well. Simple elegant and effective is what should be aimed for.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Garion on Jul 27, 2018 - 22:49; edited 1 time in total
ph0enyx13



Joined: Nov 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 22:15 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
Tricktickler wrote:

Would you be able to find a solution for it if you could rewrite the rules? It's quite hard to find a good solution. Aging was a decent attempt imo but was disliked. Clawpomb was another attempt but failed miserably.


CRP had the correct idea, keeping teams in a specific TV range as a result of attrition. The problem was that CPOMB added far too much luck to games. Having a roll with a 55% ish chance of removing an opposing player made games too dicey and not fun.

However the levels of attrition them selves seemed about right, it just needed spreading out, rather than coming from one very specific place. A little buff back to fouling, a little buff back to crowd surfing and nerf to the kill stack. That way you have a more fair and even form of attrition. SE or EM are both fine for what they do, though I found teams could still accumulate huge sums of money under SE, so EM albeit tweaked seems to be more successful.


Agreed, the ball should give you a +3 for fouling
Seventyone



Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 22:34 Reply with quote Back to top

I have really enjoyed reading this thread. It seems to me that the quality of the argument has been excellent and people have written very well indeed. In addition there have been no real ad hominem attacks. Well done fumbbl and thanks!

_________________
[img w=400]https://fumbbl.com/i/493475[/img]
razmus



Joined: Jun 23, 2017

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 22:38 Reply with quote Back to top

ph0enyx13 wrote:
Agreed, the ball should give you a +3 for fouling


A spiked ball should be +3. Standard ball would only be +1 if it is of excellent craftsmanship.

A holy avenger ball would be +5, and any evil aligned player attempting to pickup the ball gains the 'no-hands' skill.

A vorpal ball should default to CAS result of [6][*] on any CAS inflicted by the wielder.

And of course, the flame-tongue ball would act as a 'hot potato', requiring it be thrown every turn or requiring an armor roll by the carrier if the turn ends without them passing or receiving the ball that turn.
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 27, 2018 - 23:22 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:

Not a fan of Piling On 2016 either, because games would again more based on winning the coin toss and removing players by using PO, more on dice, less on positioning.


Not really. The new piling on is only usable at the cost of a re-roll. So it wouldn't be a return to crp 1st turn stupidity. In fact I don't think it would really be that heavily used. Maybe one in a team for hurting key players.

Though let me be clear I'm not saying fumbbl should use 2016 piling on. But if huge tv teams do start causing grief it may be worth considering as I see nothing else in this rule set that could help.

_________________
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