| Poll |
| Season Redraft: |
| It is a Must. Should strictly follows BB2020 User Manual rules (15 games sharp etc..,) |
|
26% |
[ 34 ] |
| It is a Must. But not strictly following BB2020 Manual (f.i : after more than 15 games and/or different redraft rules... ) |
|
23% |
[ 30 ] |
| It is nice to have and can be implemented in several way. I am flexible. |
|
23% |
[ 31 ] |
| I don't like it, but I will accept to be done with one of the previous option |
|
5% |
[ 7 ] |
| I don't like at all and I think should NEVER be implemented in FUMBBL! |
|
12% |
[ 16 ] |
| Pie! |
|
9% |
[ 12 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 130 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
 Posted:
May 16, 2023 - 20:22 |
 
|
| RDaneel wrote: | Hard cap can be a solution too.
And yes of course you can minmax but after two seasons in order to pay 40k agent fees for your super hero 180k-200k legend player (very hard to become a legend in 30 games but who knows maybe is possible) ! |
No need to have a Legend player with 6 skills. A Dwarf team with a MA 8 Runner or an Orc team with a MA 8 Blitzer, without other skills, is still very good.
That's why I'd like a max +1 stat cap per characteristic. |
|
|
RDaneel
Joined: Feb 24, 2023
|
| Posted:
May 16, 2023 - 21:31 |
|
a Blitzer Orc +MA + MA only is not what i consider a minmax
He can suffer casualties more often , you cannot keep protected (as one with Blodge, Side Step and Breack Tackle that can easily slip away)
The same for a Dwarf runner +MA + MA without Block. Nice, he can score often but probably he need to take risk and be isolated from the team after 30 games could be killed... or SI with -MA stat and so you can trow
The concept of MinMax is to create a OP player which is very complicated to kill and who can score probably in 2 turn starting from his half (usually +MA +MA is quite common) and this - with the redraft - i think will be no more possible
Then of course you can create very good players with with some characteristic improvement but no more minmax. Let's see... I cannot say more as I never played with the redraft option. I am curious. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 16, 2023 - 22:01 |
|
Although it's true that an Orc Blitzer or Dwarf Runner is easier to injure/kill without Dodge (or Blodge), with AV 10+ or AV 9+ and considering they don't suffer many blocks in a game, is not unreasonable to think that they will still be durable enough to have an impact on the games played by their team.
+MA, +MA is possible with Re-Draft. With old rules stat boost required some luck, with BB2020 rules you have a guaranteed stat boost, with enough SPPs.
The concept of minmax lies in having as many skills/stats as you can at the lowest possible TV.
That is often related to playing with very few rrs or 0 rrs, no Apo, Leader, synergic skills, skills stacked on positional players, no skills on linemen, etc.
It features very commonly a stat freak ball carrier and/or a killer, but a team can be considered minmaxed even without a Legend player.
A team with 0 rrs, no Apo and Leader is a minmaxed one, with or without a Legend player. |
Last edited by MattDakka on %b %17, %2023 - %12:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
MrCushtie
Joined: Aug 10, 2018
|
| Posted:
May 17, 2023 - 07:52 |
|
If you can't have players with 6 skills, how do you get an MA8 Block Tackle Pro Claw Rat Ogre? Sounds like a terrible idea...  |
_________________
 |
|
Klunker
Joined: Apr 02, 2021
|
| Posted:
May 17, 2023 - 08:36 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | With Season Re-Draft implemented teams such as Khorne, Nurgle, Vampires, Chaos will be even weaker than now. Not worth the effort. |
I fully agree. These teams lack skills initially, but have access to very attractive skill trees - and for this reason, I'm a devoted Chaos Chosen player.
Once re-draft is implemented, playing any of these races is truly not worth the effort. These teams will always remain underpowered.
As the chaos races (with high ST and access to claws) can be dorf's kryptonite (especially at high TV), dorfs/chorfs might quietly be the winners of implementing re-drafts. |
|
|
Joost
Joined: Mar 17, 2014
|
| Posted:
May 17, 2023 - 08:52 |
|
| Christer wrote: | Here's a view of how Team Value increases over games played in the C division:
There's a roughly linear increase from 0 to 9 games, then it slows down up to 15 games, with a little bump at 13 games which gets eaten up by the time teams get to 15. Beyond 15, there is a noticeable jump over the next two games followed by a period of a tiny increase to maybe 24 games after which the underlying data gets small enough that variance makes it hard to draw conclusions (21 and up has less than 100 teams, and 25 and up has below 60).
I remain confident that 15 games is a good breakpoint for seasons and don't think 12 would be better. It's a 1.36M to 1.39M difference on average according to the stats. |
I don't have the data, but my observation tells me that a lot of box games are with BBT teams. And they tend to stop at 15 games I think. Also, I would develop a BBT team different than a perpetual one (gambling on skills is less attractive, apothecaries less necessary, going for stats is unattractive). I wonder if that has influenced this graph? Do you see a drop in teams developing further between games 15 and 16?
edited for a second thought: another observation is that many games at higher TV involve MattDaka as one of the players, and to me it seems that Matt optimizes his teams around 1500-1600 TV but not much larger (@Matt: just going by observation mate, you would know best of course if that is strategy).
If Matt makes up a large chunk of that sample (again, a big if as I don't have the data), would that have influenced the stalling development at around 1400/1500 in the graph? Or is there a natural force somehow keeping things in check there? |
|
|
ThierryM
Joined: Mar 27, 2015
|
| Posted:
May 17, 2023 - 09:28 |
|
As a player of "fun" teams (read not the cheesy T1 rosters that make me feel like playing in "easy mode"), I fear the redraft system.
It seems quite good for the T1 teams that are stable teams (starting with packages of usefull skills) but for all the others rosters that need a development in the long run, it's a fight lost before it even started.
Sure, with some luck you might develop one, maybe two players with potential, redraft them for a second season and have the team play around them (not my kind of fun) but good luck developing their replacement for season 3 shall the stars meet an "early" death or injury.
And count me in to mark those stats/skills freaks as prime targets if I play against them (T16 foul ??  )
And it's fun & easy to mark a player with "KILL" under him. No need to list his skills/stats ) Tested and approved by your servant.
Did the game became centered around 2-3 players and the rest being red herrings in all the teams/rosters ? Did I miss the memo ? |
_________________
Breeder of Bony Legends ! |
|
Klunker
Joined: Apr 02, 2021
|
| Posted:
May 17, 2023 - 09:52 |
|
TV growth will obviously stall at some point.
Initially, growing your team from 11 to 13-14 players will grow your TV, but you may not hire a 15th or 16h player, because that's just fat. The same can be said about re-rolls and apos.
Also, an MNG player on an undeveloped team might not decrease your TV at all because you'll receive a journeyman for that game. In contrast, on a highly developed team an MNG can cost you 100+ of TV. |
|
|
Joost
Joined: Mar 17, 2014
|
| Posted:
May 17, 2023 - 09:58 |
|
But under the old rules we had a ton of teams reaching over 2000K, let alone in the 1500-2000K. So something changed with the new rules, even though we don't have Seasons applied yet. |
|
|
Jayward
Joined: Dec 22, 2020
|
| Posted:
May 17, 2023 - 10:14 |
|
It's probably a population effect; Christer mentioned that there were fewer than 60 teams who had played 25 or more games, so I imagine it gets harder and harder to find a game as you get up there in TV.
The BB3 ladder certainly had (maybe still has?) plenty of teams well over 2k TV |
|
|
Joost
Joined: Mar 17, 2014
|
| Posted:
May 17, 2023 - 11:21 |
|
thanks for pointing that out. 60 teams have more than 25 games, of which 8 are MattDakka teams. Those 8 teams have played 1188 games in the Box, and I think it's safe to assume that about a 1000 of them have been between 1400-1600 TV. So I think Matt's team building strategy has a quite significant influence of the analysis of how value grows for teams after game 15, or 25 if you will. And I wouldn't be surprised if there's a meta influence of how others respond to that in how they develop their teams. (Just to be very clear: This is not me criticising Matt - just trying to understand what's going on). |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 17, 2023 - 11:51 |
|
| Klunker wrote: | | MattDakka wrote: | | With Season Re-Draft implemented teams such as Khorne, Nurgle, Vampires, Chaos will be even weaker than now. Not worth the effort. |
I fully agree. These teams lack skills initially, but have access to very attractive skill trees - and for this reason, I'm a devoted Chaos Chosen player.
Once re-draft is implemented, playing any of these races is truly not worth the effort. These teams will always remain underpowered.
As the chaos races (with high ST and access to claws) can be dorf's kryptonite (especially at high TV), dorfs/chorfs might quietly be the winners of implementing re-drafts. |
But how many people are building dwarf killers now?
It seems like mostly a load of low TV.
DMU forever(?) |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 17, 2023 - 12:25 |
|
@Joost:
The reasons why I try to keep my teams at around max TV 1600 are:
1) I don't like low TV, nor I like high TV (not because I don't like high TV on principle, but because, in my humble opinion, there is more potential for unbalanced games at high TV, due to more "hidden" skill synergies not properly calculated by TV and due to more dramatic TV "swings" when a developed player is removed from the pitch). If the TV were more accurately calculated and there was more balance I'd play high TV too. As an aside, with old rules I played in the Box teams until TV 2000 or so, although mostly I played at mid-high TV because I find it less unbalanced and not boring in terms of rosters and skill variety.
To get back on answer, in BB2020 I found (my own personal opinion and preference, not claiming to speak the Truth) that around 1600 TV there is still enough balance and variety and not too much unbalance; if I can I try to stay under 1600 but, if to do that I have to fire players I find useful and/or fun, then I don't do it.
2) This reason is very pragmatical and has nothing to do with balance and variety considerations: it's hard to find games with teams higher than 1600, according to my experience. There are some coaches playing very high TV teams, 1800-1900 TV, but they are not many. It would be harder for me to find games if I had higher-than-1600 teams. Not impossible, but I would fail more Box draws. Since I don't want to fail Box draws I try to stay at 1600 or under.
3) Even assuming I found a game with a 1800 TV team, it would be either vs a way lower TV team (thus facing a Wizard, who I consider underpriced at 150k), or vs a higher or close TV team (but at a TV range where, in my opinion, there is more room for unbalances, as explained in point 1). Moreover, I don't like to play either as massive overdog nor as massive underdog (let's not forget that in the Box you can't voluntarily choose to play as overdog/underdog, it's not good to force somebody to play as overdog/underdog). Realistically (because playing without any TV gap would reduce the number of successful draws), the max TV gap I want is 145 TV, so I don't have to face a Wizard. Ideally, I'd like no TV gap.
A side note about high TV: with CRP rules and MVP nomination I could make my players develop in a more organic way, by evenly spreading the SPPs, for example, I could have maximum 3 skills on my Dwarf Blockers. With BB2020 rules random MVP means that spreading evenly the SPPs is harder. That means that a Dwarf Blocker could have just 1 skill, while another one could have 3 or 4 skills. In order to prevent huge TV losses due to in-game removals it's better to have max 3 skills on a player, on certain teams (especially considering that the Casualty table is worse than the CRP one). So, since with BB2020 it's harder to have a more organical growth, and that makes big TV swings worse when they happen, I try not to play at high TV. This is not true for every race, for instance, Elves are ok with lopsided roster development, but Dwarfs aren't. Dwarfs are better off with a more organic development and a stat freak ball carrier.
About Season Re-Draft, a general observation: in my opinion, the Season's length should be tailored according to a league's composition.
In a private league made of tier 1 teams I think that a Season should be 8-game long, while in a more varied league, with many tier 2 teams, requiring some development, 11-15-game long. That gives teams such as Vampires and Chaos some games to develop a bit.
With a very short Season the teams requiring some development are at a disadvantage.
Higher than 15 games could be bad, because stat freaks get easier to be built and kept.
Disclaimer: not trying to impose my own view or criticize Christer or anybody else, just saying my own personal opinion for the debate's sake.
I think that FUMBBL should be inclusive for all the tiers. For that purpose, 15-game Season seems inclusive enough, just it could make stat freaks a bit more common, hence my 12-game Season's suggestion. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 17, 2023 - 13:46 |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 17, 2023 - 13:58 |
|
The BBT has 60 games played per squad.
15 games x 4 teams = 60 games
12 games x 5 teams = 60 games
So, the number of total games doesn't change with a 12-game BBT run. Just add 1 team.
The bonus is there is more variety in a squad, with 5 teams per squad.
Yes, for sure it would be useful to test the 15-game Season and see how it goes. I'm curious to test it.
It can be gut feeling of mine, but, if we consider the SPPs, assuming 3 SPPs earned per game on average by scoring 1 TD, with 12-game Season you have 36 SPPs on a player. There could be, as extra, the random MVP, but it's not guaranteed: on 12 games the random MVP has not a reliable distribution. If we assume that the MVP ends once on the player, then 11-game Season (3 SPPs x 11 games = 33 SPPs, +MVP = 37 SPPs), but it could be too short for tier 2 teams. I consider that too. |
Last edited by MattDakka on %b %17, %2023 - %14:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
| |
custom pitch per tea...
Search
