RDaneel
Joined: Feb 24, 2023
|
 Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 14:45 |
 
|
| JackassRampant wrote: |
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, |
It's very easy to solve the problem: don't play any seasons in Box after the first (or at most the second).
After the first season, if you want, let your team participate in tournaments... I would be curious to see the statistics on how many coaches (and among this how many "expert") play the second, third, or fourth season in Box.
Someone in this forum once wrote that very few experienced coach play in Box after the second season. And I agree with this statement. |
_________________
To judge a man, one must at least know the secret of his thoughts, his misfortunes, his emotions, Balzac |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 15:34 |
|
| RDaneel wrote: | | JackassRampant wrote: |
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, |
It's very easy to solve the problem: don't play any seasons in Box after the first (or at most the second).
...
|
That's great. You can fix the other problems by just not playing the Box at all. I'm way ahead of you. 
Though, it could be that fewer people playing means more bad matchups due to whichever scheduler having nothing to work with. Leading to fewer people playing, leading to worse match ups etc., etc. |
_________________
All Star Bowl XXV - Wednesday night - 4th Feb!!! |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 15:39 |
|
A coach could play over and over again Norse, Amazon, Undead for just 1 Season and keep on winning, for the simple reason these teams are already strong since game 1. Would that tightly be related to coach's skill only or to coach's skill and inherent roster's strength too?
On the other hand, playing teams requiring some skills for just 1 Season is not worth bothering.
If playing Season 2+ is considered unskilled, then it's better not to play, just for a single Season, teams at all (because, even within Season 1, there is some development).
For non-progressive Blood Bowl NAF tournaments are better.
The effect of Injuries wears off after each game, which is a balance factor. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 16:09 |
|
| RDaneel wrote: | | It's very easy to solve the problem: don't play any seasons in Box after the first (or at most the second). |
You see how this is a catastrophic failure state, yes? If this is the case, Box is simply no longer doing what it's intended to do, nor is it serving the interests of what should be (and used to be) a large chunk of its user base. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
MerryZ
Joined: Nov 28, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 16:43 |
|
Could be nice if there was bigger impact on games played for season one, thats atleast mimicing leagueplay and there is competitive games going.
Perpetual leagues arent balanced at all and so gameable whatever rules you make. Those are just for roleplaying teams and should be treated as so. (And I dont think theres anything wrong in that, its big part of the hobby)
Imo blackbox was way worse when there wasnt seasons at all. We all remember teams that just build legend or two and 90% of games were sure win against way worse teams. |
_________________
Kaptain Awasoam, Dicer of All Men and Women and Children and Puppies. |
|
Drrek
Joined: Jul 23, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 17:05 |
|
People focusing on who won a specific game, and who was the stronger coach in the matchup are completely missing the point such as to talk about something entirely different. I've lost matchups where I was the team that was significantly more experienced, and won matchups where mine was the significantly less experienced, but this isn't about individual games, its about the generic game in a vacuum, and frankly I think neither TV nor games played is the optimal solution for finding relatively balanced matchups. I think it is far better if the 2 work in tandem, don't let 10+ game different teams play AND don't let 400k different teams play. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 17:23 |
|
Early-season protection rather than (or parallel to) rookie protection might solve that one issue, but wouldn't help with the fact that TV is just no longer being used as the main load-bearer for balance, that a lot of that weight has been shifted to the seasonal schedule and TV has been partly repurposed as a "flair factory" (for lack of a better term: it provides color now, fueled by the various rosters' TV trends). |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor.
Last edited by JackassRampant on Jan 03, 2026; edited 1 time in total |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 17:25 |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 17:28 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | | Early-season protection rather than (or parallel to) rookie protection might solve that one issue, but wouldn't help with the fact that TV is just no longer being used as the main load-bearer for balance, that a lot of that weight has been shifted to the seasonal schedule and TV has been partly repurposed as a "flair factory" (for lack of a better term: it provides color now, fueled by the various rosters' TV trends). |
Are you saying that TV is worse than it was before? I've heard some people say it is better. |
_________________
All Star Bowl XXV - Wednesday night - 4th Feb!!! |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 19:57 |
|
| Koadah wrote: | | Are you saying that TV is worse than it was before? I've heard some people say it is better. |
Worse? No, not at all. They done gone and rethunk balance, is what I'm saying. Inducements and TV work similarly on paper, but the shift in process and costing in the improvement sphere makes them function differently. Instead of being strictly a field-leveler, now some teams are encouraged to float (Orcs) or lag (Dorfs), which is presumably meant to spice up the game with more regular disparities that are both meaningful and manageable. And sell overpriced (and often overstocked) Star Player minis.
Observe that player-to-player cost balance has been shattered. Your Big 'Un gets MB, Pro, Taunt, TSkull, Argue the Reroll, and +1 SPP for every Cas, for 5k? And a PA stat and no Animosity? They're just not thinking of gold the same. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 20:09 |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 03, 2026 - 21:14 |
|
| koadah wrote: | Is it worse as a field leveller? Is it too early to say?
Are you making the old stunty argument that they want keep TV low to get inducements. |
it's closer to the latter, but instead of a few fringe rosters wanting to be low, it's about half the rosters either naturally floating or dragging in terms of value to competence, some others that have a sour spot right around their own TV, and a natural tendency for teams at the beginning of the season to lag slightly. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jan 04, 2026 - 23:04 |
|
Okay, crunching it down, what I mean is this.
By 10 games into a season, so going into a postseason or tournament, a Norse team should probably be hovering in the 1300k range, an Orc team closer to 1700k. If you spot the Norse a Wizard and Skrorg, it's kind of a fair fight, because that 1700k Orc team would be worth about 1600k in 2020 rules because of elite skills and a lack of random savings, and that 1300k Norse team is worth about 1300k in 2020 (cheap ST, no randoms), so it's a 50k Wizard with your Skrorg, and your Norse are Skrorg and one really good play behind those Orcs. Ta-da!
But those same Orcs, they're going to be 1300k on their way up, and on their way back up, every season, but in TV matching, that 1300k is going to be 2020's 1220k Orcs against those 1300k Norse. It's worse if there's a TV discrepancy: if the Orcs are cheaper, that just adds to the gulf, and if the Norse are cheaper, they get Prayers and the Orcs are new and don't have money for Petty Cash. That Norse team's 1300k totally includes 14 players and at least one ST increase, it's not hard, and you can keep it steady over time, aging like wine as you start concentrating stats.
Rebuilding Orcs won't have anywhere near the same stuff, because they get a better SPP deal on stuff that's more TV inefficient (the new parameter of tradeoff that I'm warning about), and they need that bloat to translate to inducements, which trend bloaty by design, on the lean teams. Otherwise, it's just bloaty vs. lean, and that's awful.
So yeah, some teams at age X are dependent on being big and bloaty, while others are dependent on being small and lean enough that inducements don't bloat them compared to the big ones. If you make the ones that get big fight the ones that don't on equal TV footing, you're literally telling them they can't have the thing that makes them work. And these aren't fringe rosters, unless Orcs and Dark Elves are your idea of fringe.
I don't really mind if we wander into what I see as a minefield here. But I do think it's important that we're cognizant that this is potentially bad, and that we take a stab at identifying any potential pitfalls and working out the philosophy behind any fixes well in advance, hence this discussion. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Loon
Joined: Aug 14, 2024
|
| Posted:
Jan 05, 2026 - 01:01 |
|
| 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 really don't see the complaint here. Your team was bloated for a 3 game team at 1225 TV, and that other team was an appropriate 1395k for a 10 game team. What exactly did you expect? At that TV you are ALWAYS facing tackle/MB pieces, otherwise the opponent just didn't do a good job developing their team.
Usually the complaint is about min/max teams carrying the tackle/MB piece at under 1000TV. This one is just a head scratcher. |
|
|
Loon
Joined: Aug 14, 2024
|
| Posted:
Jan 05, 2026 - 01:24 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | Okay, crunching it down, what I mean is this.
|
I am having a really hard time following your logic. The Norse are going to hover at the 1300TV no matter how many games in they are, meaning you will still get matchups where 1300TV Orcs play 1300TV Norse. Your proposed change does nothing to this. Season 2 rolls around and the Orcs drop back to the redraft limit and the Norse just stay there, meaning S2G1 will be the supposedly terrible matchup you are trying to avoid. For season 1, the Orcs will still develop up to 1300TV along with the Norse, meaning the only difference with your scheduler is that the "desired" matchup of 1700 vs 1300 will be less likely to happen, while the undesired matchup of 1300 vs 1300 is equally likely. How does your system help the (in your opinion) problem in the slightest?
Literally the only scenario that your proposal makes sense for is stunties that want to play up in TV. This has always been the issue with stunties in Box, and the sensible and easy solution of having an up-weighting feature has been inexplicably poo-pooed by people already in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Stalling thread
Search
