39 coaches online • Server time: 10:02
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post DOTP Season 4goto Post Skittles' Centu...goto Post Secret League Americ...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
CAB



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 10, 2020 - 19:54 Reply with quote Back to top

Inducement get more and more powerful the higher the TV of the teams.

The difference in power level between a 2000 and a 2200 is not as great as that of 1000 and 1200. This has always been the case which is why it is more and more important to keep TV lean the higher the total TV is.

As some inducement have been boosted to some degree it should mean that the border where Inducement is more powerful than the difference between the team will start earlier.

I have no idea where this border would be as I rarely play with high TV team but others probably know that better than I do.
Nelphine



Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Post   Posted: Dec 10, 2020 - 20:12 Reply with quote Back to top

right but unless we get to the point where its BETTER to retire a well skilled player (and therefore get inducements) when its not even redraft - which i sincerely hope we are not - then it wont matter.

if a winner redrafts with 1800 tv, and a team that doesn't win much redrafts with 1300 tv, and then those 2 teams play against each other.. that's going to be a problem.

This is one of the reasons to have a low redraft cap; so that those teams that win a lot, don't inherently get better at winning, because they win. That is a feedback loop of the worst kind.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 10, 2020 - 20:24 Reply with quote Back to top

I'd say that coaches who have already had a bad season will be more likely to be disheartened by going into next season with less money than the people who just beat them.

The winningest team/coach combinations don't need the boost IMO.

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



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 10, 2020 - 23:02 Reply with quote Back to top

Nelphine wrote:
right but unless we get to the point where its BETTER to retire a well skilled player (and therefore get inducements) when its not even redraft - which i sincerely hope we are not - then it wont matter.

if a winner redrafts with 1800 tv, and a team that doesn't win much redrafts with 1300 tv, and then those 2 teams play against each other.. that's going to be a problem.


But they wouldn't play eachother very often. As the tv difference is so big there would invariably be closer match ups. And even if there is a big tv gap every now and then, well there is nothing wrong with that either. There is nothing like cpomb in this edition. There's nothing to fear other than fouling, and tv underdog is the best at fouling.

Nelphine wrote:
.

This is one of the reasons to have a low redraft cap; so that those teams that win a lot, don't inherently get better at winning, because they win. That is a feedback loop of the worst kind.


Having thought about this statement some more. I actually think the opposite is true. If the winningest coaches and teams find themselves at a higher tv range they will by your logic be pared against eachother. Leaving the coaches and teams with lower tv battling against eachother. Which should create something of a fairer match up system.

If everyone gets cut to 1300. It will be the same coaches consistently getting around 15/0/0 records.

Allowing winners to win in a natural way will create something of a Pareto distribution. With winners facing off in the 20% and the 80% will scrap till a coach ascends.

_________________
Image
ClayInfinity



Joined: Aug 15, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 11, 2020 - 19:48 Reply with quote Back to top

But isnt the same coaches getting 15/0/0 records appropriate and just if you're the best coach. Leveling TV to an extent means that coach victory is based on skill not some sort of TV arms race? If you're a coach who can play a 100 games in a week vs the coach who plays once a month, you shouldn't have a win % advantage due to the quantum of games you have played because you have a higher TV.

And your Pareto distribution would be correct, but this is what the system is aiming to correct... that you dont become a perpetual bottom feeder because you cannot climb into the Top 20% as you put it because you're not willing to play the TV space race.
stej



Joined: Jan 05, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 11, 2020 - 20:40 Reply with quote Back to top

Isn't the argument now moving to how teams are matched?
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 11, 2020 - 21:23 Reply with quote Back to top

ClayInfinity wrote:
But isnt the same coaches getting 15/0/0 records appropriate and just if you're the best coach. Leveling TV to an extent means that coach victory is based on skill not some sort of TV arms race?

Skill will prevail either way. Teams are matched on TV in matchmaker not on games played. So some teams being higher tv than others is an irrelevance there is no "arms race".

ClayInfinity wrote:

If you're a coach who can play a 100 games in a week vs the coach who plays once a month, you shouldn't have a win % advantage due to the quantum of games you have played because you have a higher TV.


This is also incorrect as there will still be a redraft after 15 games. Also even if a team does manage their money incredibly well and win 100% of their games, and somehow starts a season at 1900 TV. There is no actual advantage here. They will be matched via TV.

ClayInfinity wrote:

And your Pareto distribution would be correct, but this is what the system is aiming to correct... that you dont become a perpetual bottom feeder because you cannot climb into the Top 20% as you put it because you're not willing to play the TV space race.


I think this new rule set has tried to force teams inside a certain tv range and I actually like that (despite it being deeply unpopular with some). However i also think its been too ham fisted. What i like about redraft is it allows me to stay in the fun tv range I want to play and for me that's 1200 to 1800. But what if you're the type of coach that enjoys 1800 to 2200. What I'm proposing gives those coaches that option. There is no bottom feeding because teams are matched by tv.

Now to steel-man your argument you could say - but what about minors and majors the higher tv teams will be the best/stand the greatest chances of success.

To which I would say only if you allow them to. Majors can function in many ways. You could have one in which the entry requirements are you redraft pre tournament and enter with a tv of 1300. Making it an equal playing field. Then you can have another than is a free for all. And another where tier 1 teams can only be 1300, there 1500 and tier 3 1700+ or something like that. The point is - give people freedom to play where and how they want to as much as you can without breaking the game (FYI no redraft would break this ruleset)

_________________
Image
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 11, 2020 - 21:48 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
ClayInfinity wrote:
But isnt the same coaches getting 15/0/0 records appropriate and just if you're the best coach. Leveling TV to an extent means that coach victory is based on skill not some sort of TV arms race?

Skill will prevail either way. Teams are matched on TV in matchmaker not on games played. So some teams being higher tv than others is an irrelevance there is no "arms race".


Secret League doesn't have a matchmaker. The "Competitive" division matchmaker will only work if the are enough teams in it to allow it to work.

The coaches who have the bad records, so least money are likely to be the ones that get the least value out of inducement.

I really cannot see why giving better coaches more rebuy money is a goood thing.
I'd say give everyone the full 20k

Garion wrote:
I think this new rule set has tried to force teams inside a certain tv range and I actually like that (despite it being deeply unpopular with some). However i also think its been too ham fisted. What i like about redraft is it allows me to stay in the fun tv range I want to play and for me that's 1200 to 1800. But what if you're the type of coach that enjoys 1800 to 2200. What I'm proposing gives those coaches that option. There is no bottom feeding because teams are matched by tv.


I really cannot see how 1800-2200 was so unbalanced that it needed to be eradicated. I really don't get it.



Garion wrote:

To which I would say only if you allow them to. Majors can function in many ways. You could have one in which the entry requirements are you redraft pre tournament and enter with a tv of 1300. Making it an equal playing field. Then you can have another than is a free for all. And another where tier 1 teams can only be 1300, there 1500 and tier 3 1700+ or something like that. The point is - give people freedom to play where and how they want to as much as you can without breaking the game (FYI no redraft would break this ruleset)


I guess that screwing over tournament-only teams is part of the intention.
People who can only play a tiny amount of games are going to have slog their way back up to the 1800 or whatever.
The massive monstrositiies could have been dealt without cutting every team to the bone.

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



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 11, 2020 - 22:22 Reply with quote Back to top

Matchmaker in slo might be possible. I'm certainly praying for it.

Winners should rewarded for winning. That way they are more likely to face eachother. I've heard you for years say the scheduler should have some bias in the algorithm for pairing high cr against eachother. This resultant Pareto distribution is the natural way of allowing this to happen. I

Now obviously there will be more blurred lines in reality. It won't be as simple as the pros play here and scrubs there, in reality the vast majority of games will occur in the medium tv range. Also as pros float to the top they would inevitably play each other and start losing and drawing games which would push them back down into the mid tv ranges again.

Either way there's really no advantage to being higher tv. But give people something to aim for, a goal of getting in the high tv mix for 1 "season" if they want to, and how else could you make high tv a rare possibility other than via winning to get there.

Edit: your 2 responses added after posting are not really in response to what is quoted they are more focused on what you dislike about the new edition. Which is fine. But they are relevant to what I posted.
Infact that first response about "what was wrong..." actually supports the system i am promoting in the last few posts as removing a redraft cap and gaining money for winning (as is recommended in the rulebook) would allow a small number of teams to get to high tv still should they have the ability and the want

_________________
Image


Last edited by Garion on Dec 11, 2020 - 22:29; edited 1 time in total
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 11, 2020 - 22:24 Reply with quote Back to top

Competitive division allows picking... so it's not sure that pros will play vs other pros.
Just saying.
CAB



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 11, 2020 - 22:24 Reply with quote Back to top

From a game design perspective it does make sense to limit the range to where everything need to be balanced and fair for the general game mechanics as far as development of teams is concerned as it lowers the amount of testing and consideration for new traits, skills, inducements, teams and a bunch of things you want to include into the game.

You can leave it up to the community and fans to figure out house rules to play the game however rules fit outside of the parameter the game designers had in mind creating the game.

To me that type of thinking make perfect sense... you can very well have a bunch of house rules to make anything work, If you have enough people to agree on those rules you could also use them online too.

In my opinion the BB2020 game could be used for high TV teams without any problem. If they are implemented on FUMBBL is not up to GW to decide but the community if a rule-set can be agreed upon.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 11, 2020 - 22:30 Reply with quote Back to top

It's not a true choice, because if Fumble doesn't stick to official rules it will lose many coaches. Many people play here because there are the official rules in the 2 competitive divisions (and NAF tournaments in League division).
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 11, 2020 - 22:46 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:

Edit: your 2 responses added after posting are not really in response to what is quoted they are more focused on what you dislike about the new edition. Which is fine. But they are relevant to what I posted.
Infact that first response about "what was wrong..." actually supports the system i am promoting in the last few posts as removing a redraft cap and gaining money for winning (as is recommended in the rulebook) would allow a small number of teams to get to high tv still should they have the ability and the want


A response doesn't have to refute the post it is responding to. Wink

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



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Dec 11, 2020 - 22:51 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:
It's not a true choice, because if Fumble doesn't stick to official rules it will lose many coaches. Many people play here because there are the official rules in the 2 competitive divisions (and NAF tournaments in League division).


The official rules say 20k per game. 20k per win.

Fumbbl "Competitive" division proposes 10k per game, 10k per win.

The rules do "suggest" a 1300 cap though.

Secret League will go 20/20. Wink

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



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 11, 2020 - 23:00 Reply with quote Back to top

Yes. I meant to say that heavy house ruling the game is not possible on FUMBBL in the competitive division.
10k is a little house rule and doesn't change a lot how the game is played.
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