MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
 Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 18:02 |
 
|
I like this last suggestion of yours, mister__joshua.
Especially this sentence: "CR could only apply to the Competitive division."
Made my day. Make it happen, pretty please! 
No CR gained for Exhibition division games, instead.
With your idea playing in Exhibition has the bonus of not having seasons for coaches not liking them, while playing in Competitive has the bonus of earning CR points (and competing for the Trophy as well).
It's a very nice idea, the more I think of it! |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 18:47 |
|
Ranked = Exhibition would suit the people who are clinging to high TV
But you realise the full horror of no seasons in the new rules will make teams huge, it would ruin itself
So people will then complain that Ranked has been destroyed, and they will be forced to play in Competitive (and might not want to use the Scheduler) |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 18:49 |
|
Really, people just need to accept that high TV is over.
The current era (since 2016) shouldn't have happened really, we didn't implement seasons back then so had an unusual period, a golden age of large team building
But the new rules are pretty obviously intended to just remove high TV
(And they're interwoven with too much other rule changes so we have to implement it all together)
This is likely been done to reduce barriers to entry (for a new player joining a tabletop league) and to avoid the balance problems that emerge at higher TV
Both of which are admirable goals and should be actioned here as well
- No you can't have an exception for your special players, every (R & B) team would presumably need a immediate re-draft when the switch is flipped
- Yes this sucks for slow developing players who will mostly be rookies now like Saurus. The meta will shift in a lot of subtle ways we don't fully appreciate yet
- Tournaments will be more accessible, less daunting, so more coaches will likely enter, which is good
- Tournament building is still possible, there is still an advantage in playing hundreds of games to prep / polish / refine.
It just looks different now |
|
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 20:04 |
|
| tussock wrote: |
3 players through, 6 skills each! Legends!
Like, a player like Debog (7658 Blodge vamp), could still redraft after 420 games!
|
Under the current TV costing Debog is 320k. I think will be higher with the new Strength costing. So I guess one season is more realistic with just one legend. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
Uber
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 20:31 |
|
| Sp00keh wrote: | Really, people just need to accept that high TV is over.
The current era (since 2016) shouldn't have happened really, we didn't implement seasons back then so had an unusual period, a golden age of large team building
But the new rules are pretty obviously intended to just remove high TV
(And they're interwoven with too much other rule changes so we have to implement it all together)
This is likely been done to reduce barriers to entry (for a new player joining a tabletop league) and to avoid the balance problems that emerge at higher TV
Both of which are admirable goals and should be actioned here as well
- No you can't have an exception for your special players, every (R & B) team would presumably need a immediate re-draft when the switch is flipped
- Yes this sucks for slow developing players who will mostly be rookies now like Saurus. The meta will shift in a lot of subtle ways we don't fully appreciate yet
- Tournaments will be more accessible, less daunting, so more coaches will likely enter, which is good
- Tournament building is still possible, there is still an advantage in playing hundreds of games to prep / polish / refine.
It just looks different now |
I support the new format, I just find it also super restrictive and it removes depth from the game. I expect every team to look the same in the long run. Also, it's not necessarily good for the meta since a few teams will be advantaged in that TR range and there's simply no upper range anymore.
I get that this system works well when you wanna run a league for a bunch of animals, but it's hardly the best imaginable system. |
_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict. |
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 21:12 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: |
Blackbox
Renamed as Competitive. Games arranged using scheduler. Uses short seasons (around 10 games) with a low TV rebuy cap (book suggests 1300TV). Agents fees determined by the number of previous competitive 'seasons' the player has played in. Teams can choose to end their season at any point. Teams that end their season or complete the maximum number of games go into post-season. |
To me, this seems it would just promote the use of a few rosters (dorf) and severely limit diversity in box. I can't see it being very fun in the long run.
Don't care about any of the CR stuff. I think that is more of a hindrance to the site that a boon. |
_________________
 |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
I don’t see how it limits diversity any more than any other suggested implementation of Seasons. Or at all for that matter? |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
krazeeEyezKilla
Joined: Jun 20, 2017
|
| Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 21:35 |
|
I generally support the new format. I consider myself a pretty casual player and prefer playing at 1300-1700 TV range (and I suspect that's true for a lot of others on casual players on fumbbl). Several aspects concern/bug me:
1. Agent fees + hard TV-cap for redrafting seem to double-punish keeping a player. Keeping a player through a re-draft increases that player's (and team's) TV by 20k - which already seems sufficient to discourage keeping many players for many seasons. If I want to keep a core group of 4 players for 3 seasons - in season 3, they that's (4*20*2) 160 TV of bloat that I have to carry. The proposed 15 game season + 1350 TV-cap for redrafting feels to restrictive to me. How about not including agent fees in the redraft TV-cap? That way, keeping players between seasons only punishes a team due to TV inefficiency.
2. The redraft system, pretty much guarantees a need for creating new rookie players. This means, under the new system, I have to come up with a lot more new player names. Naming players is hard if you play a lot and if you want to stay true to the spirit of fumbbl player naming. Insead of keeping 5 (arbitrarily chosen) rookie players between seasons - I will have to create and name 5 new rookie players to avoid incurring the 100k agent fees. For the exact same team! Would it be possible to clear all skills and spp to keep a player for free during redraft (in order to keep the player name)?
3. In the new system, TV match-making is non-sensical. I hope that the plan for scheduled match-making is based on which season a team is in and completely ignores TV. I think that will slightly encourage taking random skills because the player's TV is only penalized during re-draft and not for match-making purposes. |
|
|
sebco
Joined: Feb 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 21:45 |
|
| krazeeEyezKilla wrote: | (...)
3. In the new system, TV match-making is non-sensical. I hope that the plan for scheduled match-making is based on which season a team is in and completely ignores TV.
(...)
|
I also think with the new system, game generator could be based on number of games for 1st season (let's say 0 game team vs 0 game team then 1 game team vs 1 game team then 2-3 games team vs 2-3 games team then 4-6 games team vs 4-6 games team etc) then on number of seasons for teams having played 2+ seasons (2nd season vs 2nd season, 3rd-4th season team vs 3rd-4th season team then maybe all teams at 5+ seasons together or something like that) |
_________________
I like cheese but don't call me skaven ! |
|
Uber
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 21:59 |
|
| sebco wrote: | | krazeeEyezKilla wrote: | (...)
3. In the new system, TV match-making is non-sensical. I hope that the plan for scheduled match-making is based on which season a team is in and completely ignores TV.
(...)
|
I also think with the new system, game generator could be based on number of games for 1st season (let's say 0 game team vs 0 game team then 1 game team vs 1 game team then 2-3 games team vs 2-3 games team then 4-6 games team vs 4-6 games team etc) then on number of seasons for teams having played 2+ seasons (2nd season vs 2nd season, 3rd-4th season team vs 3rd-4th season team then maybe all teams at 5+ seasons together or something like that) |
That can't really work for hyperactive players who will be ahead of everyone and unable to play anyone but a select few.
krazeeEyezKilla, I don't think agent fees are carried on the roster, they only apply during re-draft between season. Let's say you're at cap, right after the re-draft, your team will be worth 1350 - x where is is the amount of agent fees you had to pay. |
_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict. |
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 22:32 |
|
Honestly, I am starting to hope that life for Christer gets really busy (in a good way) and he cannot devote the time to get switched over to the new rules for a few years.
I really prefer the current mechanics that much.
Also, I hope that a teams first redraft does not happen until they have played a season under the current rules or entered a tournament.
I further hope that the site does not implement a cap until a few months into the new rules. You can drop the hammer and add a cap later if it is deemed necessary. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 22:43 |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 22:59 |
|
| Uber wrote: | | sebco wrote: | | krazeeEyezKilla wrote: | (...)
3. In the new system, TV match-making is non-sensical. I hope that the plan for scheduled match-making is based on which season a team is in and completely ignores TV.
(...)
|
I also think with the new system, game generator could be based on number of games for 1st season (let's say 0 game team vs 0 game team then 1 game team vs 1 game team then 2-3 games team vs 2-3 games team then 4-6 games team vs 4-6 games team etc) then on number of seasons for teams having played 2+ seasons (2nd season vs 2nd season, 3rd-4th season team vs 3rd-4th season team then maybe all teams at 5+ seasons together or something like that) |
That can't really work for hyperactive players who will be ahead of everyone and unable to play anyone but a select few.
krazeeEyezKilla, I don't think agent fees are carried on the roster, they only apply during re-draft between season. Let's say you're at cap, right after the re-draft, your team will be worth 1350 - x where is is the amount of agent fees you had to pay. |
Weight for Stable Roommate |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 23:42 |
|
@Kondor "I hope that a teams first redraft does not happen until they have played a season under the current rules or entered a tournament"
I would expect we'd have to immediately re-draft before we can start playing in new rules.
Otherwise there's a massive legacy problem of stored up old teams being dusted off for tournaments, for years to come.
It'd be bad for tournaments, they'd be pointless for anyone who doesn't have teams like that
In 2016 globally all teams got set to Post-game state following the cash rules change, to force their treasuries to face a Expensive Mistakes roll
@krazeeEyezKilla / @Uber, If we want to move away from TV-based match making, match teams in brackets yes,
but season 5 is likely no different from season 50.
The important thing is number of games played since the re-draft.
0-3 games after re-draft
4-6 games after re-draft
7-9 games after re-draft
10-12 games after re-draft
13-15 games after re-draft
- Separate first-season teams into another bracket, for at least their first 5* games
(*Would depend how fast teams generally get to 1350)
- Possibly merge the last 2 brackets: 10-15
It'd really simplify the draws, and effectively makes the entire [C] divison into one giant perpetual league.
Which imo is closer to how these rules are expected to be played
Yes, some teams would grow faster than others, but that replicates what happens in [L] or tabletop leagues
(Also, don't forget Treasury is wiped at the end of each season. It gets folded into rebuy budget and then capped)
Yes it means some teams will get a bad few CAS and then be underdogs for the rest of the season (like League), but attrition will be lower, and a rebuy is a way to reset and salvage the team |
Last edited by Sp00keh on %b %18, %2020 - %00:%Aug; edited 6 times in total |
|
Muff2n
Joined: May 20, 2017
|
| Posted:
Aug 17, 2020 - 23:52 |
|
I'll throw my hat in the ring for this matching algo.
First and foremost it should be done on CR. It's the best predictor of who should win (apparently, don't ask me to show the data). |
|
|
|
|
| |
New Gnones vs Old Gn...
Search
