Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
 Posted:
Dec 21, 2025 - 12:52 |
 
|
Well I’m no dwarf expert but as a sample, my recent BBT team, after 15 games they were at 1350k and had
9 primaries, 5 randoms and 2 stats |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2025 - 13:01 |
|
Thanks, but in BB2025 the SPPs required to level up are less and are easier to get, hence my question.
To know if BB2025 Dwarfs are playable I think it's important to know:
- how fast they can get Guard and Mighty Blow (and on how many players);
- how fast they can get a freak ball carrier;
- how long they can keep Guard, Mighty Blow and a freak ball carrier.
If they get enough Guard and Mighty Blow players within the first Season but they have to start the second Season without enough Guard and Mighty Blow players they will struggle, I guess. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2025 - 14:01 |
|
Mighty Blow is no longer a desirable Dwarf Blocker skill. You probably want no more than 2 Guard Blockers, maybe just one. New world. Mostly that stuff goes on Blitzers and Slayers, though sure, Guard does have good enough combo value on a Blocker that one or two would probably be smart. Generally, you don't want to be buying secondaries as a matter of course, and in this edition I'm not sure why you'd need to.
Similar for development. Runners will skill more slowly than most scorers (but about the same as before), Blockers will get SPP faster but just sock up to get stats. As far as Runner stats go, they will get 2/3 SPP per game from MVPs, and 2 SPP per TD. If your Runner is averaging a TD per game, that's 8/3 SPP per game, so to get 14, that's a little over 5 games.
As far as how fast Slayers and Blitzers skill... fast. They have Block and either Frenzy or Tackle, get extra SPP for Cas, and earn MVP at double rate. 14 SPP for MB and Guard on a Blitzer should happen in a jiffy, though you might need to feed him a score or something to make it super duper fast. Take MB first, and you're an average of just over 2 games to Guard, or a little more the other way 'round. Blitzers also want Stand Firm in this edition, because they start with Tackle and Diving Tackle, but that's less urgent, and only 4 more Cas lol.
INSERT: MB is good on Blitzers and Slayers, even at 30k: After MB, you're just 28 points away from both Guard and a stat, or 20 from Guard and SFirm or SFooting. I'm not entirely sure the conventional wisdom on MB having a point of diminishing returns holds evenly here. A lot of teams that used to love it now have a hard time taking much, but teams with Brawlin' Brutes can take it as a primary skill on players they intend to redraft at will, and some other teams have very tempting cases for it, like Human Blitzers with Tackle and Pro, or Wights playing alongside multiple MB already. Observe that Orcs have two of these traits, in Brawlin' Brutes and rostered non-Loner MB. But the idea of spamming MB on Dwarf Blockers, or even taking any MB Blockers at all, won't survive the transition. That's an Orc game now, if at all. Guard on a Blocker (a Blocker) is an exception (IMO) because synergy, but generally secondaries are bad now unless it's a Block big or something like that.
I think you have to dump your preconceptions about how the Dwarf game works, because while a lot of old teams have changed fundamentally, Dwarfs are the least similar between editions. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 07:33 |
|
| Loon wrote: | | JohnDaker wrote: | Rookie teams matched up against teams that have already played 10+ games is as bad as your issues about games with a big TV difference.
|
How? Exactly why is that an issue? Give me a concrete example. |
Here you go. A 3-game team against a 10-game team: https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=4666674
My elves were doing pretty well. Two wins out of the first three game, but what's more I'd managed to get some nice development. Yay go me, for once! Got two blockers, dodge on a blitzer and a blodge catcher, along with the apo and a twelfth man. After three games, pretty nice! I think that'll hold up well against any other three-game team, or at least have an interesting match with some interesting decision-making.
And then I get matched against a 10-game team. Two tacklers (lino also with block, blitzer also with MB), a guard blitzer, and some extra block to counteract all my own development and then two blodgers of their own on top of that! At which point my thought is: "Well, what was the fucking point of my last three games then? What was the point of any team-building decisions I made?"
If I was facing the exact same team but they had managed to get that much development, specialisation and balance into three games worth of team development, rather than ten, I'd say "Good on you! Awesome work!" and I wouldn't mind playing them at all. Or if my own team was 10-games old and I'd still only got the development of a 3-game team, that would be my own problem to deal with. But facing a team with that amount of curation in terms of development should not be expected as a three game-old team, it should be an outlier that you commend your opponent for.
None of this is my opponent's fault of course! And it's not like they've even built their team to abuse the scheduler, like some people do. But the game was ruined by the scheduler. From the moment of seeing the match-up I had zero investment in the game. Winning or losing is not the point, I just want to feel like I'm playing the same game as my opponent. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 08:08 |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 08:55 |
|
| koadah wrote: | What was the alternative match that the scheduler could have given you?
Would you have prefered no game at all? |
I imagine there probably wasn't an alternative (there were only two entrants to the draw I think, and the other two teams I entered on my end were of a similar age).
But yeah, that's exactly it, and why I thought to come here and give it as an example: I'd rather not play than be made to play that sort of game. That's the type of match-up that sucks all the fun out of it for me personally. |
|
|
RDaneel
Joined: Feb 24, 2023
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 09:36 |
|
There are several way to mitigate this effect . Without touching the BBscheduler algorithm .
Some sly “pseudo” legends 4-seasons coaches exploits these techniques to reach constant 70% win rate in box second, third, four seasons.
1) You developed your team TV too fast for BB
1220TV after 3 games!
2)remember from game 4 there is no more “rookie” protection: how many teams you activated? If ONLY this is VERY RISKY in black box for game number 4 you can have more than 10% TVgap
So to mitigate this effect you should activate always 3-4 team from low TV to mid TV with 70-100 TV gap each other starting with one at low TV (around 1000) ending to one at medium high TV .
In this way you have more chance to get “fairer” pairing .
3) If you want to activate ONLY one team of medium TV and don’t want to have a big TV GAP match making it is better to activate when 4 or more coaches are activating
4) remember that below TV 1000 ALL tv teams
are considered 1000, but TVGAP more than 300 is forbidden (su useless to put a snot team tv 400 hoping to be paired with elf team tv 1000 and get 600K gold pieces , a CTV 400 snot team very likely will be paired ONLY to shootings tv 400-700)
Then if you want to play ONLY one elf team as fast you can in this case you must assume the risk to get these pairings.
Christer already explained one time
BB scheduler is developed to facilitate game pairing every round
Make too much strict limit to BB scheduler risk to have many “round” emptied especially if only 2 coaches activate 2 team only (which often happen out of “peak” time ) |
_________________
To judge a man, one must at least know the secret of his thoughts, his misfortunes, his emotions, Balzac |
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 09:55 |
|
My post wasn't a request for advice particularly, but just an example to try and explain the sort of thing that ruins the experience for me. Since different people have different ideas about this, and sharing those is what this thread has been about to some extent.
But I will just say this: if your suggestions of ways to "fix" this are ways to try and game your way around the way the scheduler works, don't you think that perhaps at least one analysis you might possibly draw from that is that the way that the scheduler works could be better? |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 11:38 |
|
A shorter Season would make game-difference-pairings less likely. 15 games are too many.
About the game linked: you should have hired a Wizard, way better Inducement for Elves vs Humans.
By the way, never hire Cheerleaders. If you want to hire staff, hire Assistant Coaches.
With a Wizard your experience could have been better, despite the bad pairing. |
|
|
RDaneel
Joined: Feb 24, 2023
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 11:57 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | My post wasn't a request for advice particularly, but just an example to try and explain the sort of thing that ruins the experience for me. Since different people have different ideas about this, and sharing those is what this thread has been about to some extent.
But I will just say this: if your suggestions of ways to "fix" this are ways to try and game your way around the way the scheduler works, don't you think that perhaps at least one analysis you might possibly draw from that is that the way that the scheduler works could be better? |
Everything can be improved, but I believe that modifying the scheduler has a lower priority than other modifications, considering that resources are limited I would prefer a "misclick" protection improvement than a rescheduler improvement .
Also because I believe that the scheduler is designed exactly that way for a good reason. I once read an explanation by Christer (because I complained about something similar).
The scheduler's priority is to maximize the probability of having matches even at times when few coaches are on line and only 2 activates in the box.
There was a thread already available here https://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=24401&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=blackbox+scheduler&start=675
Once you understand this, it's easy to see that changing the scheduler to limit matches (because if you prohibit a match between a team with 10 games against one with 4 games within the TV gap limits, you are introducing an additional constraint) would risk to have several rounds empty duyring the day.
If FUMBBL would have thousands of active coaches every time(which I hope ), your proposal would make sense, but generally the number of coaches online fluctuates between 20 and 100 and only a few percentage activate in the box. |
_________________
To judge a man, one must at least know the secret of his thoughts, his misfortunes, his emotions, Balzac |
|
Zelmor
Joined: Sep 29, 2022
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 12:02 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | | Loon wrote: | | JohnDaker wrote: | Rookie teams matched up against teams that have already played 10+ games is as bad as your issues about games with a big TV difference.
|
How? Exactly why is that an issue? Give me a concrete example. |
Here you go. A 3-game team against a 10-game team: https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=4666674
|
I watched the replay, before opening my mouth. You went to war instead of legging it fast and scoring, blitzed with a blockless star player and turned over instead of improving your position without rolling dice, risked your pieces unnecessarily and left the ball open for 2d blitzes.
You played an opponent with 200CR and 20% winrate difference and lost. He played better. Such things happen. Matchmaking is not to blame. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 12:07 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | About the game linked: you should have hired a Wizard, way better [...] |
I don't want to keep responding to this thread, but I think sometimes people aren't really reading what I said. I already said I didn't care about the game any more, whether I won or lost, as soon as I saw that my three-game team was matched against a ten-game team. Giving advice about "how to win better" really drastically misses the point! |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 12:19 |
|
You already got the answer to why your 3-game team has been matched against a 10-game team.
There are not enough people activating to make the Box scheduler's pairings as close (in terms of games played)
as you wish.
You are not wrong expressing your preference to have closer-game-teams' pairings, but the site has not enough users to support that. More draws would not happen, with that further limitation.
That leads to what you can do to make that sometimes unaivoidable game-difference draw less frustrating for you to play and to the tips offered. Since Box draws can't be changed, it's better to focus on the things you can actually do, you have control on, to make that negative game experience a bit better. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 13:10 |
|
I think that we're all kinda looking at different things.
This whole discussion is about a topic that's inherently noisy because Blackbox is already barely functional. That makes the discussion noisy too, because every single example on any side of this talk can easily be yes-butted. But if it loses much more steam, "barely functional" will start flirting with failure, and then what? So this is also an important discussion, in addition to being a noisy one. We may not really have time to assess the situation and act before damage accrues to the community.
Also, another point on Chinggis's: even if you're outside rookie season, a team that's just redrafted is likely pretty weak compared to one that's been stewing for 6 or 7 games after a redraft, TVs be damned. If I'm just trying to keep my two or three best players, or if I have some parts of the machine but not others, my first few games are going to be about putting the team in some semblance of order. My TV might not rise all that much in that time, before I hit my equilibrium, but my team will get an awful lot stronger on average. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Zelmor
Joined: Sep 29, 2022
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 14:12 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | | MattDakka wrote: | | About the game linked: you should have hired a Wizard, way better [...] |
I don't want to keep responding to this thread, but I think sometimes people aren't really reading what I said. I already said I didn't care about the game any more, whether I won or lost, as soon as I saw that my three-game team was matched against a ten-game team. Giving advice about "how to win better" really drastically misses the point! |
People are commenting on the game because the example you brought up does not support your argument. On the contrary, it reinforces the argument for the current system being the better option. But I'll respect your request and stop here. |
|
|
|
|
| |
New And Need Help Pl...
Search
